Stuart Clark or Shaun Tait?

[Santoz]

Johnson is just as raw as Tait who is much better value than Clark. If the Aussies play Watson (130-140 kph) it gives them the option of playing 2 bowlers who push 150 kph (Lee & either Tait/Johnson) and 2 bowlers around 130-140 kph (McGrath, Watson) + Warne.

Tait has the ability to reverse swing the ball pretty well and has shown he can dismiss the Poms already (Prime Ministers XI, bowled Flintoff with one he didn't pick up at all, didn't even move his feet to one that cannoned half-way up his off/middle stumps). Tait is the way to go IMO

 

[Santoz]

Johnson is just as raw as Tait who is much better value than Clark. If the Aussies play Watson (130-140 kph) it gives them the option of playing 2 bowlers who push 150 kph (Lee & either Tait/Johnson) and 2 bowlers around 130-140 kph (McGrath, Watson) + Warne.

I think I'm being quite generous to Glenn here as well ...

 

[Richo83]

Johnson is just as raw as Tait who is much better value than Clark. If the Aussies play Watson (130-140 kph) it gives them the option of playing 2 bowlers who push 150 kph (Lee & either Tait/Johnson) and 2 bowlers around 130-140 kph (McGrath, Watson) + Warne.

Tait has the ability to reverse swing the ball pretty well and has shown he can dismiss the Poms already (Prime Ministers XI, bowled Flintoff with one he didn't pick up at all, didn't even move his feet to one that cannoned half-way up his off/middle stumps). Tait is the way to go IMO

- Johnson is not 150
- McGrath is not 130-140, more like low 130s, high 120s at times.

CC I voted for Clark, if it's such a stupid decision, prove it, since it's so "stupid" this should be easy.

 

[Richo83]

Tait couldnt ball much faster with an improved action, has Lee covered for pace and is consitantly 150km+

Well his action is flawed, he loses pace by leaning to the side too much and falling over in his delivery stride.

As has been mentioned planty of times Clarks perfoemance in SA shouldnt have any bearing at all, that was a long time ago on pitches that anybody could get wickets on, he is a dud and this is proof in his very very average FC record. I would probably prefer Bracken then Clark

Strange, Bracken isn't in the squad for Brisbane, yet Clark is. Clark has thr runs on the board, fact. FC mean nothing, some of our greatest cricketers have poor FC records while some great FC players have failed at test level. If we were going on FC stats, Elliot and Lehman would be playing.

 

[Santoz]

- Johnson is not 150
- McGrath is not 130-140, more like low 130s, high 120s at times.

CC I voted for Clark, if it's such a stupid decision, prove it, since it's so "stupid" this should be easy.

That is why I said I'm being generous to McGrath, if you were smart, you would've worked that out ...

I never said Johnson bowled 150 either. I said he and Tait push it. Meaning, occasionally get close to it.

I see you're an expert on bowling actions now. Interesting that someone who bowls with a flawed action took 65 state wickets in 04/05. Can't be too flawed with results like that, can it?

Anyway, what address should I send my bowling video to for your expert analysis? If you could shape my action into that of a champion bowler ... say Stuart Clark ... I'd be forever indebted to you, oh wise bowling expert ...

 

[OneEyedHawk]

A tough one, and some good arguments mounted for both bowlers.

Tait is a risk in such an important series, could pay off big time, or could get spanked. The bowling line-up looks set, if an injury to McGrath occurs, then I'd go Clark...otherwise Tait all the way.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Strange, Bracken isn't in the squad for Brisbane, yet Clark is. Clark has thr runs on the board, fact. FC mean nothing, some of our greatest cricketers have poor FC records while some great FC players have failed at test level. If we were going on FC stats, Elliot and Lehman would be playing.

We all know this, but these cricketers with poor first class records were picked to play for Australia when they were young on potential alone ie: Warne. This is totally different for a player like Stuart Clark he was selected when he was 30 years old, so his first class record has everything to do with it, its only an average record of about 30, nothing special. He should not have been in the Australian team in the first place.

So saying that FC stats are irrelevant for a 30 year olds selection is irrelevant because some of the greatest players have poor FC records is stupid, they demand to be picked for Australia because they are proven over a long period of time in international cricket, where as Clark has just been a good performer for NSW for an extended period without being special and definatly did not demand or deserve to be selected for Australia over other bowlers. If he was a younger player that would be a different story but his not so all we can judge him on is FC records.

And there is nothing wrong with Taits action, he got hurt with his old action which has since been modified with the help of specialist bowling coaches such as D.K Lillee I suspect he may have a better idea about effective bowling actions then you.

 

[kimirocks]

T, TA, TAI, TAIT TAIT TAIT. There is no other sane solution. It is Tait, or nothing. Clark does not come into the equation.

 

[Cynic]

It's going to be a seamers wicket by the sounds of things so my money would be on Clark getting the call up (Based upon what Tait does in the current tour match of course).

 

[Smokey_22]

I wouldnt mind either of them.

The selectors will pick Clark though, 96% sure.

Despite what some biased observers here think, Clarks bowled better than tait lately.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

It doesn't matter if he is quick, if he is quick and s*** he shouldn't be picked. And as for Tait being a wicket taker, in pura cup maybe, but not against the poms.

We don't need to take risks. The batting is the thing that wil win or lose us the ashes. Last year our bowling stocks performed well. McGrath bowled well as did Warne, Lee battled manfully as the stock-bowler he isn't. The players who lost us the ashes were players like Hayden, Martyn and Katich, who batted terribly.

Our bowling is fine, the ashes is not the time to take risks and Tait is a liability. You said that Lee got smshed around, that will happen with Tait as his action is bad and he is inaccurate and inexpierienced.

As for Thompson, Thompson's action was much, MUCH better, he didn't fall away as much and was more accurate, Tait sprats the ball way too much.

Clark has the runs on the board against SA. He has proved that he can get out top order batsmen. Tait can't. He has two deliveries, the yorker and the out-swinger. His inswinger isn't good enough. Tait needs to go back and work on his action, then he can play, until then, sorry.

Who the f*** do you think you are, Trevor Hohns??

Clark is not international standard. Pedestrian.
Bracken bowls half rat power, leg stump half volleys.
Johnson is the next cab off the rank.
Tait, exciting. I get the feeling he doesn't quite know where the ball is going... therefore what chance does the batsman have??

 

[King Elvis]

I wouldnt mind either of them.

The selectors will pick Clark though, 96% sure.

Despite what some biased observers here think, Clarks bowled better than tait lately.

Clark is alright, but I'd go Tait.

We want to scare the ******** out of the Poms, Tait will do it.

And if he doesn't take wickets, he'll hurt people.

Either way, I'll be happy.

 

[Richo83]

Who the f*** do you think you are, Trevor Hohns??

Clark is not international standard. Pedestrian.
Bracken bowls half rat power, leg stump half volleys.
Johnson is the next cab off the rank.
Tait, exciting. I get the feeling he doesn't quite know where the ball is going... therefore what chance does the batsman have??

I don't think I'm anyone, but I stopped reading when you said Clark was not international standard, which is a lie.

And Coughlan, juts because Lillee has worked with Tait, doesn't mean his action is perfect. Its better than what it used to be, but still could improve. As for FC and international level, I say this because FC and international level are two different scenarios. It's quite possible for Clark to bowl pies in FC cricket, yet bowl well against the poms.

Anway, this is irrelevant, because with Watson's injury, I'd put in both. I concur that Tait is better than I give him credit for, I watched him against the poms on tv and he was good, so he's definetly ahead of Johnson. Clarke would be a poor choice IMO.

 

[Blacky]

Anyone care to change their mind about Clark, has bowled exceptionally well IMO! Great line and length.

Fielding could do with some inprovement

 

[KUNG FU]

I think poll should be changed: Tait or Lee???

Well done Clark, I didn't vote for you, but thats cos I'm a biased SA kid. I still love your work.

 

[Redlegs14]

Yeah, Stuart Clark has bowled exceptionally well, and to be honest, has been the pick of the bowlers, even though McGrath picked up 6 wickets.

It would have been interesting to see Tait bowl on this pitch with the size of the cracks, but it seems the selectors made the right decision.

 

[SWANNIES RULE]

Before the test I preferred Tait but now I prefer Clark. His accuracy is extraordinary and it will trouble any batsman he bowls to.

 

[Richo83]

To all you posters who abused me for suggesting Clark should be picked, hows 7/93 sound? Tait would never get those figures, ditto Johnson.

So I was right. Hmm.

 

[Redlegs14]

To all you posters who abused me for suggesting Clark should be picked, hows 7/93 sound? Tait would never get those figures, ditto Johnson.

So I was right. Hmm.

Gee, you're my hero.

 

[SWANNIES RULE]

On his day, Tait can get better than 7/93.

 

[raikkonen]

On his day, Tait can get better than 7/93.

Yep 8/43 in 10 overs was lethal. Saw it first hand at the ground, and he has Strauss out for 2 ducks on this tour so far I think (Pm XI game, SA game).

Taity is younger, quicker, better, and needed to earn his baggy green by playing for a team other than NSW.

 

[Richo83]

On his day, Tait can get better than 7/93.

On his day. And what if it isn't his day? On his day when Clark isn't first change behind 50 runs per wicket Lee, he could have a ten-for. Fact is, Clark played better than Tait ever could. Tait could never bowl with the accuracy and line that Clark bowled. McGrath and Clark's figures, compared to Lee's figures show that Australia's more likely to bowl England out with precise, accurate consistent bowling, instead of fast but inaccurate bowling.

I look forward to seeing Clark taking his spot in the team for the next four years. Which he deserves. After that, it's Tait and Johnson's turn.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

Although I voted Tait a few days/weeks back Stuart Clark has begun to prove me maliciously wrong. Having seen on the cricket show his strong work ethic and then his performances in the first test I am strongly thinking twice, and am now back to undecided

 

[Moss Rocket]

Fair enough that most voted before the 1st test, but seriously now how can anyone not want Clark in the side. His career figures speak for themselves. Until he stops performing, we just have to keep playing him. He deserves it.