Australian and England selection dilemmas

Having pretty much ignored cricket news for a couple of days (due to work), it's been amazing to catch up. Australia seem obsessed with the idea that they need a left-arm spinner to get Kevin Pietersen out...that's surely the only conclusion given the inclusion of Michael Beer, a man with an average first class record over just 5 matches. Nathan Hauritz has again been mysteriously overlooked, despite a very decent home Test bowling average of under 30. He produced a good allround performance for his State last week where he took 3 second innings wickets and scored a hundred. The match before, he took 7 wickets in the match at next week's Test venue, the WACA. The only conclusion can be that the selectors fear they will look stupid if they recall someone only 2 matches after they jettisoned him. But then again there is Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus who have been recalled after just one match out.

While I've found myself defending Ponting and Clarke this week, I think Hauritz has suffered from muddled captaincy from Ponting and a lack of selection consistency from the Australian selectors. The likes of England and South Africa have demonstrated what needs to happen when you don't have a world-beating spinner available. Ashley Giles and Paul Harris are/were no world-beaters but their role in their sides was/is well thought out. Australia need to do the same with Hauritz.

Marcus North's time has run out and presumably Brad Haddin will move to 6 with Steven Smith will bat 7. There's huge pressure on Smith's bowling though and it will be interesting to see how he responds after he was taken apart when England played Australia A earlier in the tour. Introducing him as the side's one spinner would be very risky but that could be the direction the selectors are going in?

England on the other hand have just one spot to sort out and none of their second-string seamers have exactly covered themselves in glory during the latest tour match. While he may not be a world-beater I think I agree with Jonathan Agnew who thinks that England should pick Bresnan. Bresnan has been in and around the side for a while now and represents the more logical selection choice, rather than Tremlett who has only joined the current squad at the start of this tour. Needless to say, Bresnan's batting will be useful at 8 too. I wonder how many readers of Cricket Burble realise that he averages over 40 in Test cricket (admittedly over just 5 matches), compared to Broad's 27.

England have also selected the ODI squad this week, where Bopara is out and Chris Tremlett and Chris Woakes are in. I still find it hard to believe that a trier like Luke Wright gets the nod over someone with so much talent as Ravi Bopara, but it's no doubt the right call for now and hopefully Bopara will come back in a better player for this. I still see him as the long-term successor to Paul Collingwood (in the ODI team at least) - I'd love to know if the likes of Geoff Miller and Andy Flower feel the same.

Enough about ODIs for now. The far more important and interesting action starts again at the WACA next Thursday and it will be riveting. If England can win the toss and score 500+ in their 1st innings they will feel they have all but retained the Ashes, no matter what they might say publicly until they've completed the job....

Australia's bowling attack for the Gabba

Given recent scores at the Gabba, I was going to post this morning about how it looks like it's seam friendly and if your spinner is borderline for selection, it looks like a place to go in with 4 seamers. So England will of course play Swann as he's their best bowler, but for Australia I'd be going with Bollinger (assuming he's fit), Harris, Siddle and Johnson, with North, Katich and Clarke able to bowl spin as necessary.

But Greg Chappell seems to be leaning away from 4 seamers, so what do I know?

Nonsense paper talk

Ed recently burbled about the fact that Marcus North has been mentioned as a possible successor to Ricky Ponting as Australian Test captain. In my opinion this is just silly paper talk, and is not a realistic chance of happening, although not nearly as far fetched as the suggestion in the same article that Cameron White could get the gig! Cameron White is a useful one day cricketer, but will certainly never play another test match, let alone captain one. Callum Ferguson is also mentioned in the article, this could only happen if Ponting plays for another five years or so.......not likely.

This article is one of the reasons I rarely read newspapers anymore.

Marcus North to follow Ponting as Aussie captain?!?

Amazing that Marcus North can be talked about as the most likely candidate in the Australian team to be dropped, and then talked about as a potential captain because Michael Clarke's stock is falling!

North holds Aussie batting together

I don't know how to feel about Marcus North scoring a hundred in the 2nd Test against India. There's no doubt he was struggling a bit but as always the extreme opinions were laughable - it's as if most of Australia are baying for his blood. I'm not close enough to Australian domestic cricket to know if he's in the top 3 middle order batsman who can bat 4-6 for the national side, but what I can say is that any batsman who averages a hundred every 3 Tests or so (and has a 96 to his name too) clearly has something, no matter how poor a starter he is.

I'm not sure I'd back those Aussies who are desperate for Steve Smith to come into the side, but if he is to come in, batting 6 and being the 5th bowler is an option. Playing him as your one specialist spinner simply isn't an option yet - he's not that good a bowler. But it's interesting to see how things go in cycles - without the immense depth of talent in Australia that made selection relatively easy in the 90s and early 2000s, the same issues emerge on the other side of the world as happen here when England's international depth is limited. Players are fast-tracked into the side before they are ready in desperation, and there is constant debate about the make up of the side.

North may be no world-beater but the days that Australia could play 6 batsman who'd all have a good chance of playing in a World Test XI are over. And much as I'd like Australia to change their side to give England a better chance of retaining The Ashes, North's century is likely to ensure that they maintain consistency and therefore maximise their chances of success. Good on him for coming through the pressure of immense scrutiny and making his highest Test score.

(I should add that prior to the India series I was backing North to start The Ashes too, if Australia wanted to maximise their chances of success - it's not an opinion that's come after his hundred today!)

Ponting's bowling selection

Ponting has opened himself up to potential criticism by using Watson and North in tandem with India needing 20odd and just 2 wickets needed. If it works he'll be a brilliant captain, if it doesn't it looks a stange piece of captaincy....

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.