Keep Four Quicks at The Oval?

[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

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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

 

[The Passenger]

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.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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 w***er.

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.

 

[Carl Hooper]

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.