Where's Haury
The day before the oval test I voted on a cricinfo poll: Who should Australia select as the fourth bowler? Brett Lee, Stuart Clark or Nathan Hauritz. I put my vote in for Hauritz. I'm not sure how the results of the poll finished but at the time I voted I was very surprised to see Brett Lee had about 56% of the vote and Hauritz just 15%.
In the Australian press over the last week there has been so much talk about how Australia had blundered by not playing Clark in the first three tests. I disagree. I think he was a good selection for Headingley on a horses for courses basis. When conditions assist him he is still a very good bowler, he just puts in the right spot and lets the wicket do the rest. On more placid pitches though, his lack of pace and predictability count against him.
Everything I read about the Oval wicket in the lead up to the test commented on how dry the surface looked, it amazes me therefore that Australia did not pick a spinner. Given how many balls have gone through the surface on day one, and seeing even Marcus North get some assistance so early in the match, I think its pretty obvious Australia have blundered by not playing Hauritz.
5 comments:
I'm not sure how much better Hauritz is than North, Clarke and Katich - between them, I guess Ponting thinks he has enough spin options, and he can still get his 4 seamers and a strong batting lineup.
Let's hope he's wrong...
I'd have to disagree entirely about Clark! I think Australia would have won the Ashes before this if they'd played their best team. Johnson and Clark were there must picks at the start of the series for me, with 2 of the other bowlers needed to compliment them.
Clark gives accuracy and control so with good captaincy his figures will always be economical even when he's not taking wickets. Australia's bowling attack has offered many more four balls than they would have liked (but probably less than England's!), and Clark was the man to turn to when wickets needed to be taken through building pressure.
Having said all that I would have played Hauritz and dropped one of the seamers - Siddle and Clark would have been the ones to choose from for the axe. But don't discount Clark to come into his own second innings if the bounce is variable - he is the one bowler who will bowl consistently straight to get more chance of taking advantage of an up and down wicket....
Siddle for me is always a must pick. He was my pick at the start of the series for leading wicket taker, and he is now it after his four on the first day. He has a tendancy to stray onto the pads and thus can get expensive, but he is such a lion hearted bowler and produces as much venom in over 90 as over 1. He's a partnership breaker and can pick up a few wickets when it seems there is nothing doing, exactly as he did on day one.
You've seen a lot more of Siddle than I have but I feel he worked his way into the series in a way Clark wouldn't have had to. He would have been on the money from the start.
I like your reference to lion hearted - read this article about Siddle from King Cricket which made me laugh.
I think that last session has just proved that the Aussies missed a trick not picking the spinner. Although apart from the very occassional part-time offspin from Collingwood we don't have any part-time spinners, compared to the Australians 3...
Post a Comment