Andy Bichel and selection issues

[CarterS]

Well as you all know Bichel has been left out of the team for MacGill for the 3rd Test, and watching it on Ch 9 I heard an interesting argument between Tony Grieg and Ian Healy in regards to Andy Bichel.

Should Australia have played 5 bowlers and dropped one of the batsman? I think it would have been a good idea myself, but which batsman would they drop? Steve Waugh seems to be the weakest batsman right now but he's the captain and let's face it he wont be dropped.

Mark Waugh I would think would be next weakest although Ponting hasn't had the best year so far.

What are your thoughts? Should Australia have played 5 batsman, 5 bowlers (Gilchrist is basically a batsman as well) and should they in the future when they come to a grassy pitch?

Personally I don't think they should have bothered with MacGill.

 

[BW]

I think if a batsman has to go in such a situation it should always be the number 6. The number 6 should be the weakest batsman so Martyn should of gone. But this would of been just tight so i think the right decision was made.

 

[Robbo1]

The main reason IMO that bichel was left out was to play the two spinners together as a trial run. They have only played a couple of tests together (Warne,Macgill) and as the test series has already been won, there is no major damage to be done if the two spinners theory doesn't work.

Anyway, we would beat South Africa with two bowlers and eight batsmen, so i don't feel that it is a major concern.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

I've always been of the view that if you need 5 bowlers to dismiss a side then your other 4 aren't good enough.

Our frontline 4 bowlers have been going the job for us perfectly well in the last few years so we don't need another specialist bowler.

I'm also not sure that MacGill and Warne will work that well together in this test; we'll see I suppose.

What we really need is a genuine batting/bowling all rounder to make this side complete.

 

[Robbo1]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
What we really need is a genuine batting/bowling all rounder to make this side complete.

I couldn't agree with you more. Although the aussies are as good as perfect over recent years, a strong allrounder would make us virtually impossible to beat - if we aren't already!

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Robbo1


I couldn't agree with you more. Although the aussies are as good as perfect over recent years, a strong allrounder would make us virtually impossible to beat - if we aren't already!

There's nobody really on the hoirzon either, as Shane Lee and Harvey are not really up to test standard.

On a similar issue I think part of the South African's problems are that they may have too many allrounders. Klusener, for example, wouldn't get a game either solely on his batting or his bowling. They would be better off choosing an additional specialist batsman or bowler, which they have done for this test I suppose.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

What we really need is a genuine batting/bowling all rounder to make this side complete.

Don't be surprised in Ian Harvey is taken on the South African tour along with Katich and the 12 in Sydney - definitely worth giving him a go in the tour matches at least.

 

[kretchy]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk


Don't be surprised in Ian Harvey is taken on the South African tour along with Katich and the 12 in Sydney - definitely worth giving him a go in the tour matches at least.

I reckon Harvey is a great one-day player but i reckon his batting is a bit too inconsistent for the tests but i agree it would be good if we could find a genuine all-rounder for the future test sides.

Possibly a while down the track some possiblities are Shane Watson from Tassie and maybe Cameron White the young Victorian leggie.