Stuart Clark in playing semi-retirement

Only a few months ago I was openly wondering why Australia persisted in playing seamers who couldn't land 2 balls in the same spot, while Stuart Clark wasn't even considered. But now he's chosen to move into the administrative side of the game...while I'm always critical of the number of ex-players in cricket administration because they've missed out on gaining the necessary business experience while playing, no one can argue that Clark isn't well qualified, even if he is a bit light on the experience front. Supposedly not part of the Ponting in-crowd because he was far more intelligent than the former Aussie-skipper, Clark has also shown Martin Crowe how to try to keep playing while putting his non-playing career first....

Is it best to be occasionally brilliant?

Now that Australia have finally dropped Mitchell Johnson I think it raises some interesting questions about why some bowlers are retained for longer than others. Some seem to be retained against all common sense, while others are always talked about as close to being dropped. I'm no psychologist, but it must come down to people (and selectors) feeling more favourable towards players who give brilliant performances and very poor ones, compared to the steady-eddies.

Of course the best bowlers are always steady-eddies and can occasionally put in brilliant match-winning performances too. I'm thinking of bowlers like McGrath, Warne, and dare I say his name in the same breath, Flintoff in his latter career (NB. he had a far better later part of his career). Their worst was a decent Test match performance. And their bowling averages - yes, I know stats don't tell the full story - back that up.

But then you've got the steady-eddies who don't seem to ever be quite as revered as the scattergun occasional match winners. I'm thinking of the likes of Angus Fraser who averaged 27 but always seemed to be on the verge of being dropped in the second half of his career. Or Matthew Hoggard, who's average of 30.5 puts him miles ahead of Devon Malcolm (37), Steve Harmison (31.8), and Flintoff's overall average of 32.8. But no-one remembers Hoggard's regular 3 fors, just the 9 in an innings that Malcolm got against South Africa, Harmison's 7 for 12 against West Indies, or Flintoff's 5 for at Lord's against Australia.

Mitchell Johnson (30.1) had a sensational period in Test cricket and will remember some real highs, such as his 8 for against South Africa. But somehow those highs stopped the selectors from assessing him as they should have done, just as England did with Harmison. Then consider this against Stuart Clark, who averages 23.9 in Tests, only took a 5 for twice and never took 10 in a match, and was swiftly forgotten after injury pegged him back a little (sorry Dave, just had to mention Clark one more time to rile you!!).

Anyone with me on this theory that players get cut far more slack if they can be a matchwinner occassionally rather than a steady performer almost every match?!?

New(ish) ICC rankings

Some interesting things to note from the latest ICC rankings:
- The top 3 ODI bowlers are all spinners
- 6 of the top 10 ODI bowlers are spinners
- No Australia or South African batsmen make the top 5 Test batsmen
- The top 2 Test batsmen are both Sri Lankan
- The 5th ranked Test bowler in the world is the forgotten Australian Stuart Clark

From an England point of view James Anderson and Graeme Swann scrape into the top 10 Test bowlers at 9 and 10, and with Stuart Broad at 13 and Graham Onions moving up from nowhere after only a few games, England's Test bowling suddenly seems to look like a decent unit.

Now we just need to get some batsmen into these lists and we could compete! Pietersen and Strauss aren't far off....

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.

A tale of two bowling attacks

While everyone but the Aussie selectors seems to think Stuart Clark should have played all along, there are still no hints that Australia's top wicket taker in the last Ashes will play at Headingley. Jason Gillespie reckons he should play, and I've added a comment agreeing with him. While it's great that Australia aren't playing their best team because England have a better chance of winning The Ashes, it's also frustrating because I'm not doing well in Ashes fantasy cricket because I keep picking Clark, refusing to believe the Aussie selectors could not pick him again, and he keeps scoring 0!

But there seems to be plenty of people who reckon Lee will play - I'd find it surprising given his track record if he was played as soon as he was fit. It's not like he's *that* good - if it was Warne or McGrath maybe, but Lee is a long way off that. If I were the Aussies, I'd play Johnson, Hauritz, Clark and Hilfenhaus, dropping Siddle. And I wouldn't make Watson bowl unless he's fully fit - watching the guy trundle into the crease and bowl so badly was painful, even as an English supporter.

So that brings us to England's bowling attack. Sidebottom has been solid all season for Notts and I did think when England brought in Harmison for the last Test squad that Sidebottom must be considering himself unlucky. Many think England's bowling attack will differ based on Flintoff's fitness - if he is they can go with the same but with Sidebottom coming in for Broad and Swann batting one place higher; if he isn't then they could play Harmison to open the bowling with Anderson, and still drop Broad while playing an extra batsman. But to be honest, I think that's a risk given Harmison's up and down form on the big stage and I'd personally go with Sidebo as it's a 4 man attack - given Harmison's County figures this season most would disagree with me on that. I wonder if the reason Bopara bowled a few overs in the last Test was to assess his bowling in case they needed to go in with 4 specialist bowlers...?

If Flintoff isn't fit and England do go with 4 bowlers, the question is then where to bat Trott. I suspect he'll go in at 6 above Prior if he plays, but if I was naming the batting order I'd move Collingwood to 4 and Bell to 7, leaving Prior and Trott to bat 5 and 6. I don't think it matters greatly which way round they bat, but I'd marginally give 5 to Trott based on the fact that it'll be a vote of confidence batting him higher, and because - despite his high strike rate - Prior averages 36 in this series and that's not worthy of top 6, let alone top 5.

In fact, when you look at the runs and wickets in the series so far, they make scary reading for England. Australia have 5 of the top 6 run scorers and 4 of the top 5 wicket takers. Maybe we shouldn't be counting our chickens in England just yet....

Australia's selection

It's a tough selection decision. Allan Border is now saying that Australia should drop Johnson for Clark, and I certainly think they need to get Clark in the team somehow - going into the series without him seemed strange from the outset. Clearly I don't watch Aussie cricket day in, day out, but I'd be looking to play Clark ahead of all the Aussie seamers that have played.

Border suggests just the one change to bring Clark in instead of Johnson. I'd be tempted to get Watson in there as well and it has to be Hughes or North to go if you do that. I can only assume it would have to be Hughes, with Hussey up to open, so it will be interesting to see how they play it. As a non-Aussie with no experience of watching Hughes play well ever, or watching Watson bowl or bat well in a proper match (i.e. not a one-dayer or Twenty20), it's something I'll sit on the fence on....