Keep Four Quicks at The Oval?

[likka]

Clark and Siddle were superb in the first dig at Headingly, and Hilfy and MJ have destroyed the English top order in the second innings.

Big question is do we keep all four for the 5th test at The Oval, or drop one for Hauritz on a track that is traditionally very flat and takes spin?

I'd keep all four personally, partly because of the psychological damage they've done this match... but mainly because I think it is our strongest attack regardless of the track (sub continent dust bowls excepted).

NOTE: I am making the assumption that Lee will not play, but fully expect both him and his mgmt team to be throwing toys out of the cot if he doesn't.

[Cleavy]

Either keep all 4 quicks, or if a spinner is required then drop Hussey.

[Bomber Bears]

Who can you drop? Clark has been supurb and lifted the performances of those around him

[frankrizzo]

lee will probably tell you to drop all 4 and he can bowl from both ends.

But seriously it's such a tough one, before this test Johnson would have been the only one that could be dropped on form but right now unless the pitch is a raging turner it's hard to justify dropping any of them for hauritz.

[likka]

lee will probably tell you to drop all 4 and he can bowl from both ends.

This made me laff... funny cos its true.

[courtjester]

Either keep all 4 quicks, or if a spinner is required then drop Hussey.

I'd agree with dropping Hussey and playing 5 bowlers in different circumstances, but after we win this test, we will only need to draw to retain the Ashes. Weakening the batting line up for the 5th test wont be the way to go. You could argue that Hussey hasn't done much, but if it comes down to us needing to bat out the final day of the 5th test, I still want Mr Cricket there.

I'd say they'll go with the same team. It's going to be too hard to drop any of the pacemen.

[Gibba]

I disagree, no English pair have had a partnership under this new format of the attack. Hauritz is a type of spinner that is able to contain a dangerous partnership. If it is a flat tracker, it'll be difficult to contain the runs without a spinner. Of course if no pair has a signficant partnership in the next test, there should be no argument but obviously there is bound to be a few.

[Jimthegreat]

Either keep all 4 quicks, or if a spinner is required then drop Hussey.

Given we'll be 1-1 keep the batting strong and aim to make over 400 to ensure a draw, and the Ashes, as the first step, then concentrate on winning if the opportunity's there.

[likka]

If it is a flat tracker, it'll be difficult to contain the runs without a spinner.

Clark is much more economical than Hauritz, so if Punter wants to retain control and apply some scoreboard pressure Clark is crucial.

[Jono B]

I will do a Brett Lee and absolutely crack it at the selectors if he is picked.

The only change we should look at is dropping Hussey.

Personally I would drop Hussey and bring back Hughes to open. Katich could go to no. 4.

[courtjester]

I disagree, no English pair have had a partnership under this new format of the attack. Hauritz is a type of spinner that is able to contain a dangerous partnership. If it is a flat tracker, it'll be difficult to contain the runs without a spinner. Of course if no pair has a signficant partnership in the next test, there should be no argument but obviously there is bound to be a few.

No English pair have formed a partnership in this test with the 4 quicks either.

Who would you drop to let Hauritz play Gibba?

[DaRick]

Hauritz hasn't exactly been bad this series, but why would you change a winning combination so quickly? I know that The Oval is supposed to be a road, but who on earth would you drop? Siddle and Johnson are firing again, Hilfenhaus is still on the money, whilst Clark remains a metronome.

Although Brett Lee did bowl well early on, his recent injuries plus his terrible record in England make him difficult to pick. His Test career (save for injury) may have concluded.

[Dez!]

If they are dumb enough to produce a flat pitch that will only end in a draw so be it, should be encouraging the curator to make the pitch a mine field.

They need to win the Test to win the Ashes, drawing it does nothing for them.

Same bowling attack.

[holybishop]

I'm always of the opinion you need a spinner regardless of the pitch. Sure, the 4 quicks are destroying the English attack now, but who's to say they'll do the damage again. England have been able to get partnerships going in the previous 3 tests. All it takes is just one big partnership in the 5th, which is where a full time spinner is crucial. I've got no idea who to drop, however I wouldnt hesitate to drop a quick. Since all 4 are in some good form, dropping one wouldnt hurt the attack as long as the other 3 keep their form going. If anything I'd probably drop Siddle, not because he's been in bad form, but because he's so similar to Clark while Johnson and Hilf both have their differences. Sure, it's tough luck on Siddle to be dropped while he's in great form, but the same should be said for Hauritz who himself was in great form but had to make way because apparently the "pitch conditions" didnt suit a spinner.

[holybishop]

And we shouldnt forget Australia have Watson as well. So in reality they've got 5 quicks playing.

[ManWithNoName]

And we shouldnt forget Australia have Watson as well. So in reality they've got 5 quicks playing.
He's a batsman at the moment, not an all rounder. His back isn't strong enough to bowl yet.

[TorresIsGod]

He's a batsman at the moment, not an all rounder. His back isn't strong enough to bowl yet.

Exactly. He should be in the side to bat, Ponting shouldn't even be considering him to bowl.

[Selective Retention]

Ideally we would want a spinner. Since none of them deserve to be dropped and Hauritz is only so so it has to be no change. Hussey for Hauritz would be a good roll of the dice if we needed to win the test but we don't so it's not going to happen. Hauritz is not quite good enough with the bat to go with 5 bowlers, Krejza would be ok with him and MJ at 7 and 8, something to think about on the flat aussie pitches in summer perhaps.

[holybishop]

That session there pretty much confirmed Australia need a spin bowler. The way Swann and Broad were able to whack the quicks at a run rate of over 6 was ridiculous. Pretty surprised Ponting didnt try Katich, North or Clarke during that period, but the part timers probably would have knocked them for 6's. They were lucky it didnt matter in the end, but it's a worrying sign nonetheless. And Clark has bowled himself out of the 5th test. 0/75 at a rate of 6.72 is not pretty at all. He's given the selectors an escape route for including Hauritz, instead of forcing them to make a tough call in dropping either Siddle, Hilf or Johnson.

[aussie1st]

Would Hauritz have been able to stop the punishment anyway? When tailenders want to go the whack very few spinners can actually stop them. Paul Harris who is in the top 10 bowlers in the world according to ICC got whacked by Johnson when he started teeing off.

[TorresIsGod]

that stand only went for 12 overs, that isn't long to get away with a few swings with nothing to lose. we have a tour game coming up where you'd imagine clark and lee will have a bowl, as would hauritz.

It's only a two-day tour game if I remember correctly, I'm not convinced that will give us as accurate indication of where Lee is at.

We know that Hauritz is match fit and maybe Clark was getting a bit tired today, since he hasn't played much cricket lately.

They'll all have a bowl and we'll probably be out of Clark or Hauritz for the final spot depending on the pitch.

I'd stick with the four quicks.

[aussie1st]

Yea its a 2 day tour game as stated by the English commentators. Hopefully they allow us to pick to bat/bowl. Definitely take the bowling option, maybe let them bat twice :p

Bowling attack for tour match I suspect will be Hauritz, Clark, Lee, Johnson

[wavefall21]

definitely keep the 4 prong pace attack, im sick of this horses for courses rubbish, if you bowl the ball in the right areas the wickets will come and all these fast bowlers deserve to keep their place

[ManWithNoName]

I can't believe people are advocating changing a bowling attack that destroyed a top order twice based on some slogging by tailenders.

Ridiculous.

[Russian]

I'm always of the opinion you need a spinner regardless of the pitch. Sure, the 4 quicks are destroying the English attack now, but who's to say they'll do the damage again. England have been able to get partnerships going in the previous 3 tests. All it takes is just one big partnership in the 5th, which is where a full time spinner is crucial. I've got no idea who to drop, however I wouldnt hesitate to drop a quick. Since all 4 are in some good form, dropping one wouldnt hurt the attack as long as the other 3 keep their form going. If anything I'd probably drop Siddle, not because he's been in bad form, but because he's so similar to Clark while Johnson and Hilf both have their differences. Sure, it's tough luck on Siddle to be dropped while he's in great form, but the same should be said for Hauritz who himself was in great form but had to make way because apparently the "pitch conditions" didnt suit a spinner.Agree with all that. It was a big risk to play 4 in this game and it came off, but that doesn't mean it's going to keep coming off.

[holybishop]

It's not the slogging, it was the fact that tailenders were able to successfully put on a 108 run partnership and make those quicks look harmless. Now, imagine at The Oval it's instead a partnership between Strauss and Cook. If the England batsmen can get in a groove, the quicks will struggle to get them out. Ponting will need a spinner in that situation.

[bombersno1]

Why change an attack that has just won a test. I like Hauritz, but so far we have won ZERO tests with him in the side and got flogged at Lords. If he was bowling that well he would have bowled us to victory at Cardiff! No changes.

The Poms needs to re-work their middle order. Put Collingwood at 3, then work from there. You would have to consider dropping Bopara or Bell (one or the other)

[bombersno1]

Ponting will need a spinner in that situation.

North
Michael Clarke
Katich

There is 3 spinners in that lineup, North can bowl pretty useful spinners.

[matty p]

If you want to give yourself the best chance of winning a Test, it's a pretty simple formula:

PLAY YOUR BEST 4 BOWLERS.

Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle and Clark are the best 4 bowlers in the country, so play them.

Hauritz would struggle to make the top 20 bowlers in the country, so what's the point in having him in the team.

We won this game with our bowlers dominating, how much more obvious can it get? As I've said all series, we need to play the 4 seamers. We will win the series if we do.

Only change I'd make is Hughes in for Hussey, moving Watson down to 4.

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Watson
Clarke
North
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Clark
Hilfenhaus

[holybishop]

Clark's dissmal second innings cast's plenty of doubts as to whether he's part of our best bowlers. And you're very harsh on Hauritz, and it's obvious you havent payed attention the first three tests. Hauritz was the Aussies best bowler in the first by far, and did the job when required in the next two. Based on his form, he did not deserve to be dropped, and was very, very unlucky. Hell, if anyone was to be dropped before the 4th test to make way for Clark, it should have Johnson, not Hauritz.

[matty p]

Clark's second innings didn't mean anything. England knew that were going to lose and so decided to play it like a ODI or T20. Clark has always been a poor ODI bowler and so I'm not surprised that he got carted. In Test conditions though, he is a great bowler.

Look at the 1st innings where the game was on the line. How short are some people's memories? Clark's spell of 3-7 set up the game for us. Has Hauritz ever been able to do that to us? No, he is not a game winner or a wicket taker.

Hauritz struggles to make his state side. I am firm in my belief that he is not in the best 20 bowlers in Australia. In fact there would be no spinners in Australia anywhere near the top 10. Therefore we shouldn't play them.

And there is no benefit in England preparing a spinning pitch, Swann and Panesar are as bad as Hauritz. Their success in bowling depends on their pace bowlers, but they have shown all series that bowlers like Anderson, Onions and Broad need extremely good bowling conditions to be dangerous.

Oh, and Hilfenhaus was our best bowler in the 1st test. Bowling Hauritz at the end cost us the win.

Our best chance to win this match is to play our best 4 bowlers. Clark should be retained, along with obviously Hilfenhaus, Johnson and Siddle.

[matty p]

Here's a stat:

Matches this series with Hauritz: 0 wins and 1 loss in 3 Tests
Matches this series with Clark: 1 win and 0 losses in 1 Test

Matches in South Africa with a spinner: 0 wins and 1 loss in 1 match
Matches in South Africa without a spinner: 2 wins and 0 losses in 2 matches

So we're 3-0 without a spinner and 0-2 (plus 2 draws) with a spinner in our last 7 matches.

[TheRiverRat]

don't be fooled by the lower order slogging - it was a 3rd day pitch which is generally at its best for batting

the 4 quicks have to play at the Oval.......

[paul22]

In my opinion I would keep the same bowling attack as we had for the 4th test, if the selectors HAD to bring back Hautriz due to pitch conditions and 1 of the quicks would miss out in my opinion it would be Clarke that misses out. I think we have to stick with Hilfy, Siddle and Johnson for the last test, espically now that Johnson and Siddle are back into form .. and Hilfy has been consistant all series. We defiently dont want to be dropping a batsmen espically given we can draw this test to retain the ashes, I guess the only batsmen under the pump at the moment is Hussey, but saying that if they bring Hughes back then they are dropping Watson down the batting order when we has been doing a good job thus far, why fix something thats not broken ??
IMO is the pitch is going to take spin and we dont want to go in with 4 quicks the only change is Hauritz in for Clarke but you would defiently want to get the conditions right if you are going to drop someone of Clarkes ability. I also think Huss is lucky that we dont have another middle order batsmen on tour at the moment..

[saj_21]

Drop all the bowlers and play 11 batsmen :p

In all seriousness go in with the same line up, hopefully win the toss and bat for 150 overs.

[Bomber Bears]

Holybishop is an idiot. Surely our selectors will not base their dropping of players on a seond innings in which Broad and Swann threw their bats at everything regardless of where it was pitched. That doesnt happen in an ordinary situation, it because it is rare that a side is so far behind and already 6 down in their second innings, they were just have a hit and giggle.

However in the first innings Clark was comfortably our best bowler, his spell before lunch was absolutely supurb and was the best control any bowler has had this series. Yes Siddle got more wickets but Clark was the better bowler, of that there is little doubt.

If he gets dropped our selectors have NFI

[Dez!]

Drop all the bowlers and play 11 batsmen :p

In all seriousness go in with the same line up, hopefully win the toss and bat for 150 overs.

Which means we will be bowling with 11 batsmen because winning the toss is the thing Ponting struggles with.

Would be entertaining though, more so watching the batsmen bowling.

I like it.

:p:thumbsu:

[likka]

Listening to Ponting's post match interview last night it really would not surprise me to see Hauritz replace Clark at The Oval.

He chose his words very carefully, and made it obvious Clark had been chosen to suit conditions. It is blatantly obvious he doesn't rate Clark and his body language spoke volumes.

[flash2]

Keep the same. The pitch isn't going to turn so much that Stuart Clark would be useless. If if it's spinning alot, Clarke got 6/9 in India once. North can bowl too. Clark gets 'wicket assists' too, by tying up one end and applying pressure. As unlucky as Hauritz is, we'd be better off keeping the only dominant bowling attack we've had all series for the last Test.

Brett Lee is a long way off playing for Australia.

[Sid]

Drop all the bowlers and play 11 batsmen :p

In all seriousness go in with the same line up, hopefully win the toss and bat for 150 overs.

Who would win: 11 batsmen vs 11 bowlers

[TorresIsGod]

Keep the same. The pitch isn't going to turn so much that Stuart Clark would be useless. If if it's spinning alot, Clarke got 6/9 in India once. North can bowl too. Clark gets 'wicket assists' too, by tying up one end and applying pressure. As unlucky as Hauritz is, we'd be better off keeping the only dominant bowling attack we've had all series for the last Test.

Brett Lee is a long way off playing for Australia.

I imagine Clarke wont be doing any bowling with his stomach complaint that he carried into the fourth test.

Why risk it, he's batting so well at the moment.

North and Katich can do the spin bowling and we'll take the 4 quicks in.

[TorresIsGod]

Who would win: 11 batsmen vs 11 bowlers

It depends, are all rounders allowed to be included?

[Jimthegreat]

It's not the slogging, it was the fact that tailenders were able to successfully put on a 108 run partnership and make those quicks look harmless. Now, imagine at The Oval it's instead a partnership between Strauss and Cook. If the England batsmen can get in a groove, the quicks will struggle to get them out. Ponting will need a spinner in that situation.

We don't need a spinner, we need 4 good bowlers that apply consistent pressure. If that happens the Poms won't be winning even if it's a draw.

Easy to tee-off when the pressure's off. No chance they would've tried that in the first innings. I remember Johnson and McDonald Tearing South Africa apart in the 3rd Test in a similar way when the Test was long gone. Johnson ended up with a 123 and McDonald around 70 and we still lost by an innings. No pressure, swing the bat. This Test the bowlers were brilliant the first 2 days when the game was there to be won. All that matters. Last night was a "one day" slog without the field to suit.

[frankrizzo]

Listening to Ponting's post match interview last night it really would not surprise me to see Hauritz replace Clark at The Oval.

He chose his words very carefully, and made it obvious Clark had been chosen to suit conditions. It is blatantly obvious he doesn't rate Clark and his body language spoke volumes.

He's never rated clark, even during his golden first year he was always under bowled.

The selectors also only picked him because lee wasn't 100% fit.

But that says a lot more about the selectors and ponting than it does clark.

[courtjester]

If they don't rate Clark, there's something majorly wrong. Clark set up this test win for us. He is impossible to score off at times and builds immense pressure from his end.

If they drop him it wont surprise me if we lose the 5th test.

[frankrizzo]

Oh and anybody who wants to base the 5th test team selections on that meaningless broad/swann slog partnership(where about 5 or 6 slogs nearly went to hand)........

http://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr306/THE-1-2-P/FacePalm_picard.jpg

[trev106]

Stick with the 4 quicks, why would you change a bowling line up that won us a Test match within 3 days with every bowler doing their bit? If we need a spinner then give North or Katich the job.

[Kram81]

lee will probably tell you to drop all 4 and he can bowl from both ends.


Ha ha :thumbsu:

[Cassius_Clay]

NFI:

aaronmx, Arecsa, DaRick, Deestroy, deledio7, Dez!, diablo14, Divi18, GoDoggies, hogman, jd1991, Jimthegreat, Kerrby, Kram81, likka, marcuz, matty p, Max zero, Paul81, potatomasher, RooBuoy, saj_21, Santana, Sims01, TheFool, TimeIsRunningOut, TorresIsGod, weagles_fan, willbo

Hauritz should be the 2nd bowler picked behind Hilfenhaus. Clark or Siddle, doesnt really matter, Haurtiz must be selected at the Oval.

[Cassius_Clay]

Listening to Ponting's post match interview last night it really would not surprise me to see Hauritz replace Clark at The Oval.

He chose his words very carefully, and made it obvious Clark had been chosen to suit conditions. It is blatantly obvious he doesn't rate Clark and his body language spoke volumes.
Wrong. It's blantantly obvious that Ponting isnt as dumb as the majority of BF posters. A specialised spinner must be selected at the Oval and Hauritz has had a pretty darn good series. Only was dropped cos of conditions. Back at the Oval it'll be the same as the first 3 tests and rightly so.

Ponting think's Clark is the 4th best quick, end of.

[Jimthegreat]

NFI:

aaronmx, Arecsa, DaRick, Deestroy, deledio7, Dez!, diablo14, Divi18, GoDoggies, hogman, jd1991, Jimthegreat, Kerrby, Kram81, likka, marcuz, matty p, Max zero, Paul81, potatomasher, RooBuoy, saj_21, Santana, Sims01, TheFool, TimeIsRunningOut, TorresIsGod, weagles_fan, willbo

Hauritz should be the 2nd bowler picked behind Hilfenhaus. Clark or Siddle, doesnt really matter, Haurtiz must be selected at the Oval. LOL!!!!!!!!

You know what they say the beauty about opinions.....you don't have to know anything to have one. Your's is a case in point. I'd look in the mirror before saying other's have NFI after what you just said. Especially given we just won the match inside 2 1/2 days. First time our attack has caused real problems. Something to do with pressure. That's what gets wickets. Last 3 Tests we've won hasn't involved a spinner.

Since when is the Oval a raging Indian turner. If it's a road then no-one will get wickets, spinner or not. So many pitches we forever hear are supposed to turn and never do. Want blokes that will apply pressure. We look alot different with the 4 quicks when it came to applying that pressure. Hauritz is tight but not that threatening.

NFI!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I struggle to believe Clark is the 4th best bowler. Easily ahead of Siddle and if he was actually in the team like he should be then he'd be ahead of Johnson at this stage in the series, too.

[DaRick]

NFI:

aaronmx, Arecsa, DaRick, Deestroy, deledio7, Dez!, diablo14, Divi18, GoDoggies, hogman, jd1991, Jimthegreat, Kerrby, Kram81, likka, marcuz, matty p, Max zero, Paul81, potatomasher, RooBuoy, saj_21, Santana, Sims01, TheFool, TimeIsRunningOut, TorresIsGod, weagles_fan, willbo

Hauritz should be the 2nd bowler picked behind Hilfenhaus. Clark or Siddle, doesnt really matter, Haurtiz must be selected at the Oval.

Yes, all of us have NFI, because this current bowling attack hasn't worked for us at all in this Test just gone, has it? (rolls eyes).

Honest to God, did you actually read my post (or anyone elses)? I never criticised Hauritz - he hasn't exactly been bad, but I don't see the point of dropping someone for Clark just for the hell of it, whilst dropping him based on a slog-a-thon is really silly. Even if he doesn't take wickets (which unfortunately, is common for him on flat decks), he does do an admirable job of building pressure, so he's not entirely worthless.

Besides, we only think that The Oval will be flat. Make The Oval flat and we may just have a re-run of Cardiff, only (probably) without the profligacy of Johnson and Siddle this time around - meaning that'll be tough for England to win.

At any rate, you've been wrong before - in fact, you've even toed the same tired old line even when you've been proven wrong (you were slagging off Mitch after he took 8/61, FFS!). So in all honesty, your opinions are no more or less valid on this matter than the rest of us. Don't bother acting as if they are - you just come off as a Neil Harvey-esque windbag.

[ManWithNoName]

Who would win: 11 batsmen vs 11 bowlers
Bowlers ability to pinch hit as batsmen>Batsmen ability to bowl a team out.

Bowlers. Easily.

[courtjester]

Bowlers ability to pinch hit as batsmen>Batsmen ability to bowl a team out.

Bowlers. Easily.


Here are two sides. Which one would win?

Team 1

1.Graeme Swann
2.Mitchell Johnson
3.James Anderson
4.Peter Siddle
5.Stuart Clark
6.Graham Onions
7.Nathan Hauritz
8.Steve Harmison
9. Brett Lee
10.Stuart Broad
11.Ryan Sidebottom

Team 2

1.Andrew Strauss
2.Simon Katich
3.Ricky Ponting
4.Alastair Cook
5.Shane Watson
6.Ian Bell
7.Michael Clark
8.Ravi Bopara
9.Mike Hussey
10.Marcus North
11.Paul Collingwood

[bombersno1]

Bopara would open the bowling..haha

Bowlers easily, they can all bat a bit, most have FC 50's. One has a test hundred.

[frankrizzo]

Bowlers have the advantage simply because every test match they are forced to face high quality bowling themselves thus they improve (chris martin aside).

Batsmen on the other hand can go through their whole careers never bowling to high quality test match batsmen.

[damochandler]

they have to keep clark in the team no matter what. he drys up one end lets the other quick to bowl freely. i tghink they should replace siddle with hauritz. i know siddle bowled well at leeds. but they have to keep clark in the side just to tie up one end

[Black Thunder]

Either keep all 4 quicks, or if a spinner is required then drop Hussey.
yep that's the guy for mine.

just saw on fox sports andrew hilditch in a press conference and he couldn't garuantee clark his spot in the team and it sounds to me as if they are going to drop him for hauritz.

i just refuse to believe they are even considering dropping stuart clark.

for one, we'll never know, but i'm very confident had he been picked from the beginning this series would already be over.

but after he decimated their middle order and set up the victory, it's just insane to consider dropping him.

if they wanna bring hauritz in, then yep, it should be for hussey. lets face it, we're not really losing much with the batting - and it still leaves our batting pretty strong. we'd have a pretty standard batting line up with 5 guys averaging over 40, a number 7 (Johnson) with an average over 30 and a solid number 8 (Hauritz)... Watson might still average in the 20's but we know he's a better batsmen than that and 3 consecutive half tons is nothing to sneeze at.

honestly just ludicrous to consider getting rid of clark.

[Jono B]

Siddle has taken 36 wickets @ 23.75 this year. Dropping him should not be an option.

[bombersno1]

It is not as bad as you think. Playing 5 bowlers when we do not have to win is madness. Yes in an ideal world I'd love to win the series, but a draw is enough to keep the Ashes. If we are batting last to save a test, I do not want 5 bowlers in the side. As bad as Hussey has been at least he has the potential to bat out a day. The only way I'd consider playing 5 bowlers is if Lee comes in for Siddle as well becuase frankly Siddle is ordinary with the bat.

You need a spinner at the Oval. That is not to say I would drop Clark. I would not change the lineup and see how North goes as the front line spinner. If he is going to bat at 6 ahead of others he needs to bowl overs.

[holybishop]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/11/2652864.htm

What Hilditch says in that article doesnt look good on the future of Clark. Almost certain they're going to drop Clark for Hauritz.

[aaronm46]

I have NFI

[hogman]

I was spewing over the self congratulatory press conference Hilditch gave.
by the way he was talking you'd think it was four nil in our favour.
What a bloody fool.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

"He did a good job but the other three bowled exceptionally well as well and took more wickets.

"So I think we are going into the fifth Test with those three fast bowlers as our leading bowlers."


So the wicket tally is all that matters, not when they take the wickets or who they get out. Siddle cashed in after Clark's good work, the last 4 wickets in the first innings were basically gimmies.

What a ****ing idiot.

[Jono B]

So the wicket tally is all that matters, not when they take the wickets or who they get out. Siddle cashed in after Clark's good work, the last 4 wickets in the first innings were basically gimmies.

What a ****ing idiot.
If you think about it that way, Siddle helped set up the innings by bowling a good spell which removed Englands best batsman and kept it tight. This set things up for Clark.

That was the good thing about the bowling performance. Every bowler did their job well and this made life easier for the other bowlers.

[Jimthegreat]

If you think about it that way, Siddle helped set up the innings by bowling a good spell which removed Englands best batsman and kept it tight. This set things up for Clark.

That was the good thing about the bowling performance. Every bowler did their job well and this made life easier for the other bowlers.

If it's a wicket that has a bit for the quicks as well as taking spin then we have to work out who'll be most valuable. Hauritz is tight but Clark applies genuine pressure, which greatly assist the other bowlers in a way Hauritz can't. The results of the last Test showed that. The last 3 Tests we've won has been without a spinner so I'm not sure we need one.

Result....no-brainer. Take Clark, hence the 4 quicks.

[frankrizzo]

Hilditch really comes across as a smug wanker.

Because of poor selections we are in a 1-1 dog fight with one of the poorest England teams since their bad old days.

[frankrizzo]

Be nice if he at least admitted as well if lee wasn't injured clark would have played no part in this series.

The idea that it was all part of some master plan to unleash Clark at edgbaston is laughable.

[TorresIsGod]

So the wicket tally is all that matters, not when they take the wickets or who they get out. Siddle cashed in after Clark's good work, the last 4 wickets in the first innings were basically gimmies.

What a ****ing idiot.

Have you seen England's tail bat at all this series?

We've struggled (that's being kind) to dismiss tail end batsmen and when Siddle finally does it, he's cashing in because Clark set him up?

Give me a ****ing break.

[Jordan...]

We don't need a spinner, we need 4 good bowlers that apply consistent pressure. If that happens the Poms won't be winning even if it's a draw.

Easy to tee-off when the pressure's off. No chance they would've tried that in the first innings. I remember Johnson and McDonald Tearing South Africa apart in the 3rd Test in a similar way when the Test was long gone. Johnson ended up with a 123 and McDonald around 70 and we still lost by an innings. No pressure, swing the bat. This Test the bowlers were brilliant the first 2 days when the game was there to be won. All that matters. Last night was a "one day" slog without the field to suit.
Agreed - I hate how people complain that "we need a spinner".

Did the dominant West Indies have a spinner? No.

Do you play a spinner who is shit i.e Hauritz? No.

Do you play Stuart Clark who ripped through the top/middle order? Yes.

[Jimthegreat]

I don't see what the angst is towards Hauritz? At one stage he was our leading wicket taker and he has got top-order players out. He has improved out of site, I have no doubt that his a better bowler then his FC average suggests.

No angst at all towards him. Certainly improved alot but Clark is a far better option. Hauritz is tight but Clark provides real pressure where he not only ties you up but they worry about going out every ball. Big difference.

[holybishop]

Hauritz is tight but Clark applies genuine pressure, which greatly assist the other bowlers in a way Hauritz can't.

0/75 are not the figures of a bowlier 'genuinely applying pressure'.

[likka]

0/75 are not the figures of a bowlier 'genuinely applying pressure'.

3/8 off seven overs before lunch on day 1 says otherwise.

Hauritz would not have gone for a lesser run rate had Broad and Swann thrown the bat at him.

[weevil]

Really poor performance from Hilditch in the press conference.

[Bomber Bears]

Hilditch is offically a ****brain. We got the selections spot on? Piss off idiot, get Mark Waugh and Darren Lehman on the selection panel and piss off Hilditch at least.

I mean how come most viewers can see how much Clarks bowling lifted the performances of the quicks around him, in particular Johnson in the first innings, levels they hadnt come close to matching before that innings. Siddle may've taken more wickets but he cleaned up the tail after excellent work from Clark.

[frankrizzo]

Siddle actually said as much after day 1, that clark’s control helped all the other seamers.

In a game we don’t have to win why jettison the one bowler who generally doesn’t got for over 3.5 an over?

[frankrizzo]

Either way it looks like clark’s career is over after the oval, this selection panel clearly are planning on bringing lee back in and having him compete with the 3 younger seamers.

Amazing a bloke with nearly 100 wickets at 23 who has never let us down is having his career terminated at a time we are struggling for consistency.

[likka]

Really poor performance from Hilditch in the press conference.

Which one?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Really poor performance from Hilditch in the press conference.

Link?

I fear Clark could be finished after one spell where a couple of tailenders with nothing to lose went the tonk.

Unbelievable if true!

[Dez!]

Hopefully Clark plays in the game against Kent takes 5fa and says f*** you Hilditch just like the rest of Australia is thinking.

[Jimthegreat]

0/75 are not the figures of a bowlier 'genuinely applying pressure'.

What type of knowledge of cricket do you have. 6 overs, 3/7 before lunch breaking the back of the opposition is. 4 wickets+ a Test at 22.97 is.

Don't care what happens in junk time.

Think before you post next time otherwise you'll make a fool of yourself again.

[TorresIsGod]

Hopefully Clark plays in the game against Kent takes 5fa and says f*** you Hilditch just like the rest of Australia is thinking.

Why stop at 5?

Just make it all 10!

[hogman]

Link?

I fear Clark could be finished after one spell where a couple of tailenders with nothing to lose went the tonk.

Unbelievable if true!

try ABC click on sport then cricket

ABC News - Top Stories - Breaking news from Australia and the world (http://www.abc.net.au/news/)

[Cousin Jed]

Either way it looks like clark’s career is over after the oval, this selection panel clearly are planning on bringing lee back in and having him compete with the 3 younger seamers.

Amazing a bloke with nearly 100 wickets at 23 who has never let us down is having his career terminated at a time we are struggling for consistency.

Listening to Robert Craddock on the Back Page last night he reckons Lee and Clark have both played their last test for Australia.

Though it seemed like that was part knowledge, part what he would do.

[bobmurphy2]

As hard as it is to drop Siddle after that test, I think it is in the team's best interest to bring in Hauritz on a dry wicket that will take turn. Hopefully Watson can get in a few handy overs and get back to the bowling form we are used to from Shane.

[Howard Littlejohn]

Clark has to stay in, his presence seemed to straighten everyone up. Having that reliable bowler consistently on the spot is vital.
Its either Johnson or Siddle that would miss out. I've voted Siddle, but over the whole series it would be Johnson that would be left out.

They will probably drop Clark though, the one who under absolutely no circumstance would I be dropping at this point. I just hope if they go that way, its not an Ashes losing move.

[ManWithNoName]

As hard as it is to drop Siddle after that test, I think it is in the team's best interest to bring in Hauritz on a dry wicket that will take turn. Hopefully Watson can get in a few handy overs and get back to the bowling form we are used to from Shane.
Watson WILL NOT bowl. His back isn't strong enough, and even if it was it just isn't worth the risk yet.

[matty p]

Hilditch is offically a ****brain. We got the selections spot on? Piss off idiot, get Mark Waugh and Darren Lehman on the selection panel and piss off Hilditch at least.

I mean how come most viewers can see how much Clarks bowling lifted the performances of the quicks around him, in particular Johnson in the first innings, levels they hadnt come close to matching before that innings. Siddle may've taken more wickets but he cleaned up the tail after excellent work from Clark.

It's not just Hilditch who's the problem, it's Merv Hughes and David Boon too.

I mean to have the clown prince Hilditch, plus 2 blokes, Hughes and Boon, who are regarded as 2 of the most clueless bogans in Australian cricket, as the national selectors, is just ridiculous.

As I have said for the entire series, it's a simple formula: Play your best 4 bowlers. For us that is clearly Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle and Clark.

[amer]

It's not just Hilditch who's the problem, it's Merv Hughes and David Boon too.

I mean to have the clown prince Hilditch, plus 2 blokes, Hughes and Boon, who are regarded as 2 of the most clueless bogans in Australian cricket, as the national selectors, is just ridiculous.

As I have said for the entire series, it's a simple formula: Play your best 4 bowlers. For us that is clearly Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle and Clark.

Exactly, play our four best bowlers. Hauritz is not in the four best bowlers in Australia so he shouldn't play.

[aaronm46]

Hilditch was a real tosspot in that press conference. How on earth did he get the job in the first place???

[DeadlyAkkuret]

try ABC click on sport then cricket

ABC News - Top Stories - Breaking news from Australia and the world (http://www.abc.net.au/news/)

Wow, what a tosser. If he could suck his own dick he would have done it right there at the press conference.

[Wallaby]

I'm not sure - you can get away with 4 quicks at Headingley, but history shows you need a spinner at The Oval - and Hauritz is good enough.

I don't have quite the same level fo admiration for Clark here that most do. Clark took the fewest wickets of our bowlers at Headingley. To those who say 'He showed the others how to bowl', both Hilfenhaus and Siddle took a wicket before Clark even came on to bowl. Johnson got Bell before Clark got his first wicket. England were already 3/39 when he did his stuff in the first innings.

Clark is too slow if the wicket is doing nothing - he won't get many out. Yes, he keeps it tight - not an under-rated asset with out attack.

If we are worried about the other bowlers 'forgetting' how to bowl, make him 12th man and he can run onto the field and give Johnson and Siddle a boot up the a*se now and then.

[Cousin Jed]

I did the same research and to save me the effort of doing it again this post by the great POBT should summarise the Oval's recent history for everyone

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15347898&postcount=449

[Jimthegreat]

I'm not sure - you can get away with 4 quicks at Headingley, but history shows you need a spinner at The Oval - and Hauritz is good enough.

I don't have quite the same level fo admiration for Clark here that most do. Clark took the fewest wickets of our bowlers at Headingley. To those who say 'He showed the others how to bowl', both Hilfenhaus and Siddle took a wicket before Clark even came on to bowl. Johnson got Bell before Clark got his first wicket. England were already 3/39 when he did his stuff in the first innings.

Clark is too slow if the wicket is doing nothing - he won't get many out. Yes, he keeps it tight - not an under-rated asset with out attack.

If we are worried about the other bowlers 'forgetting' how to bowl, make him 12th man and he can run onto the field and give Johnson and Siddle a boot up the a*se now and then.

That you Mr. Hilditch.? What a stupid post. Sorry. Clark broke the back of the English when it counted with 3/7 off 6 overs by lunch. Siddle got the last 4 feeding off Clark, in other words, the tail. It's not what you get it's when you get them. No brains required there. Clark was easily the best of the bowlers in the first innings. The one's that can bowl tight with pressure are the one's you bowl on flat tracks. Last thing you want are one's that leak on a good batting track. No brains required there either. So I take it you would've dropped McGrath on flat track because he was too slow? Clark averages just over 4 wickets a Test at 22.97. That's perfect for flat tracks.

Only time you need a spinner is on a raging Indian type turner. If it's flat everyone struggles to get wickets. No co-incidence the last 3 Tests we've won were one without a spinner. And the one before that again was won on a so-called spinning track in Sydney again by our quicks with little influence by Hauritz.

Anything else?????

:rolleyes:

[Jimthegreat]

I did the same research and to save me the effort of doing it again this post by the great POBT should summarise the Oval's recent history for everyone

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15347898&postcount=449

That convinces me about the selection of 4 fast bowlers. The Oval always has a bit in it for everyone. Good for batting, good carry for the quicks and a bit of spin and a pitch that gets a regular result. Bat well you get runs, bowl well you get wickets. Seems the type of pitch you'd like to see often, a genuine context between bat and ball. Hopefully win the toss and aim to bat into the 5th session.

[Jimthegreat]

Hauritz is our most economical bowler, so if you want to play a bowler to keep it tight then play hauritz.

playing four fast bowlers doesn't work all that often, if the oval is dry then we are going to need a spinner which means someone has to miss out. you can't play them all.Clark is our mist economical bowlers by a long way. Career figures prove that. Don't worry about a junk time slog on. The link above shows spinners, outside of Warne, haven't had much success at The Oval. Big difference from being tight and bowling tight with pressure where the batsman worries about whether every ball will get him out. They're the bloke you bowl on flatter track. Recent history at The Oval shows Hauritz won't do alot on this track. This is the ground you play your best 4 bowlers more than any other as it has something for everyone, bats and bowlers.

[holybishop]

Meh, I'm hoping Australia go with 4 quicks, since I want England to win.

[Belnakor]

The thing about Clark is, that if he shows up you know what he is going to put out there - whereas with Siddle and to a lesser extent Johnson are quite unpredictable. Going into a match we can't afford to lose i would prefer Clark over Siddle - Siddle got 5 cheapies in the 1st innings, but for mine, he just doesn't have the consistency. Clark can lack for penetration, but unless batsman are just swinging the timber for the sake of it, he isn't going to go for runs. Johnson/Siddle you can't say that going into a test match.

[Jimthegreat]

well it's hard for spinners to dominate when normally there is one in each side so therefore there are two in the game compared to 6 fast bowlers.

people here seem to have short memorys, i remember clark not being able to beat a bat in india. i still think he needs a bit of juice in the pitch, in that regard we need to wait until close to the game to start extrapolating form from one game to the next.

if the wicket is bone dry then your off your face to play 4 seamers, clark took 3 wickets for the match. one of them was a gifted wicket off stuart broad who guided a legstump half volley straight to mid wicket. so therefore you have 2 wickets in collingwood and cook, is that enough to push for selection? both of them were taken on day 1 when there was a bit of life around and after 3 early wickets had been taken.

Hauritz has done a good job so far, and, as i alreay mentioned, is our most economical bowler which is a point many are trying to make about clark and his inclusion.

i still remember when clark was named to play in the 1st test at the gabba before the 06/07 ahses and people on these boards were in uproar. saying he was a hack, one aussie fan even said he hoped clark got smashed around the ground.

thankfully most of the nuff nuffs on here don't have much of a say on the composition of the australian cricket team.

You being one of the nuff nuffs. If you can't see Clark was our best bowler in the 1st innings you weren't watching the game. Look at the link above you'll see spinners haven't had a great effect at The Oval unless it's Warne or Harbajan, and most have been "result" matches. Our most economical bowler, career-wise, is Clark. No argument there. 4 wickets a Test @ 22.97. Certainly didn't look like he's "lost it". Series-wise so far, not hard with Johnson and Siddle in the team to be the most economical. Economy without worrying anyone one thing, economy with pressure is another. Not hard to work out. Even Giles was economical.The Sydney Test against South Africa did not see Hauritz have an great effect. It was Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger and McDonald. That was dryer and more cracked than the Oval will ever be. Then our next 3 winning Tests were with 4 quicks. When we've had a spinner recently we either lost or drew.

It's a pitch that has plenty for the bats if you bat well and plenty of carry for a quick, hence wickets if you bowl well as well as a bit of spin. Bit for everyone if you do well hence pick your best 4 bowlers. Unless it's a raging Indian-type turner there's no guarantee a spinner will be successful. And spinners haven't had a great influence at the Oval, and there's been 7 results from the last 10 matches there, so we shouldn't be compelled to pick one.