Australia
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
I think White was picked possibly as much for team togetherness as anything. Whitey has been in the squad WAY more than Hodge recently, not that he deserved it, but it's a fact. Given he's only going to arrive an hour before the Windies game, he probably isn't going to get a game for the first round anyway as he de-jetlags. It's more just filling out the squad with a familiar face. Well that's the best reason I can come up with
. But there are others: White has a good career T20 record too and most (all!) of his success has come in England, so it does make a little bit of sense. White is also an out and out basher which the side needs, they don't need more accumulators like Hodge, as Clarke and M.Hussey can already fill that role. Ponting is also locked in at #3 which is Hodge's best spot. The other thing White does is give them a guy who can bat #7, and allow them to play 4 quicks below him. Then the other overs are filled by White, D.Hussey and Clarke. Wouldn't be my favourite team, but I think it's a team the selectors have in the back of their minds.But anyway Aussie fans, we are about 9 hours out from kickoff, lets talk selection. In my mind there are 8 locks for the XI tonight:
5 in the top 7:
Watson, Ponting, Clarke, M.Hussey, Haddin
3 bowlers:
Lee, Bracken, Johnson
Argue all you want about the merits of Clarke and Lee being there, but I would be shocked if they weren't both there. Clarke is in good form after the warm ups and Pakistan series, he's the vice-captain and he's very handy in the field. With Symonds gone there is no chance of Clarke missing out. Lee has done well since coming back in the IPL and his experience, lower order batting and good outfielding will be important.
So we need 2 more for the top 7 and it's between:
Warner vs D.Hussey vs Hopes vs White
In theory, 3 of these guys could play with the 5 already locked in - leaving Hopes at #8, but it's (hopefully :upray) unlikely. And it's possible that only 1 of them could play if Mitch Johnson were selected at #7, but that is a big risk given that Mitch hasn't shown much batting prowess in the shorter forms the game thus far. So it's likely to be 2 of the above 4 guys filling the top 7.
White surely won't play tonight as he'll just have walked from the airport, so it's really a battle of 3 for those 2 spots. D.Hussey would seem the most likely to play since he offers a bit of X-factor in the middle order and bowls handy offies. The pick between Hopes and Warner could be dependent on Watson's bowling. If they aren't confident in Watson's ability to bowl at good speed for 2-4 overs, then Hopes and D.Hussey may be the 2 to play, with Hopes at #7 as those 2 bring the most bowling depth.
The confidence in the opening partnership is the other factor. If Warner plays, surely he opens - probably with Watson with Haddin sliding down to #7. But if the Aussies like Haddin/Watson as a combo it could be Hopes getting the nod. I would probably go this way tonight. Generally I don't fancy Hopes for T20, but he could fit well in tonight's lineup at #7. It would give Ricky as many bowling options as possible as we gauge where Watson is at and see how the opening partnership holds up. And Hopes is quite decent with bat, certainly more reliable than Mitch Johnson.
Now the bowling lineup. One more guy is needed to add to Lee, Bracken and Mitch. It could be Hopes, but I think that would be a bad call. IMHO he doesn't have the ability to play as a specialist T20 bowler. ODI specialist bowler? Yes I think so, but he struggles in the shortest form unless he's bowling in good circumstances when the batsmen won't attack him. So for me it comes down to Hilfenhaus vs Siddle vs Hauritz for the last spot. It was a surprise that Hilfy didn't get a run in the warmups as he has a good T20 record and would fancy English conditions. Maybe they just wanted to see Siddle bowl after his long lay off.
Either way, I think Hauritz should be the pick, just to bring some variety into the attack. But it all depends if Ricky will have the gumption to actually bowl him. Going from past experience, he's probably just as likely to rely on Dave Hussey to bowl than try a specialist spinner. But that's for Ricky to answer and we'll probably see by the selection tonight if they go for 4 quicks or for Hauritz. If not Hauritz, I'd prefer Hilfenhaus over Siddle. He has a bit more experience, a better record and conditions should suit him.
That leaves an XI of:
Watson
Haddin
Ponting
Clarke
D.Hussey
M.Hussey
Hopes
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Bracken
Chances: Warner, Hilfenhaus
Should miss out: White, Siddle
Last edited:
OK quick post mortem.
Firstly I was wrong about selection: we went with the 11 best batsmen in our squad
And then batted Mitch and Lee above Hopes 
Second, there will be a ton of anger at Brett Lee today and he did get smashed sure. But why on earth did Ricky bowl him for 3 overs straight up? Gayle and Fletcher were cracking every full speed ball he bowled for the first 2 overs, his only respite is they couldn't get his slower ball. But then Gayle got used to it or started to pick it - and bang there's your 27 off an over. That's just poor captaincy, letting Gayle get used to Lee for 3 overs really hurt when he had the option of bowling Bracken for a change.
Generally I thought Lee wasn't too bad. His pace seemed pretty good. His no balls were costly, but I don't think he'll ever fix those. He was guilty of bowling a couple of short ones to Gayle, but I don't think anything he bowled was going to stop his onslaught. It certainly wasn't a spell worthy of 56 being hit from it.
Thirdly, I don't think many teams would have beaten the WI today. Their batting was rampant. I could count on my hand the number of times Gayle and Fletcher found a fielder. Their placement was insanely good and their hitting was right out of the middle. Only exception of Fletcher's towering miscue that Hussey dropped. So while Aussie fans will wring hands and ask what went wrong, I think the more appropriate answer is the Windies batted really well.
Fourthly, for all the batting depth we played, it was a pretty average display and as soon as the Windies boys starting flaying the attack to all parts you knew we were 20-30 short. The embarassing thing is that the Windies gave us at LEAST 20-25 runs from fielding errors - dropping the ball over the boundary, balls going through legs etc. Australia only deserved to make 140.
Where to from here? For Christ's sake lets play another bowling option. If we aren't even going to bat Hopes at #8, get rid of him and play Hauritz. Hopes had decent figures last night, but he was lucky to not be put away by Fletcher on a couple of occasions where he bowled leg side and Fletcher couldn't get a tickle on it. Would have been wides otherwise. Everyone will argue for Lee's dropping, but I don't think you drop one of our most successful ODI bowlers ever after 3 costly overs. Of the batsmen, Ponting got a good one, Clarke looked good for his short stay, Haddin was OK. Watson is really the only guy who was bad and that was more a mindset thing, trying to impose from ball one. On the plus side for him his bowling looked decent. His pace was mid 130s and his lines were good, just bowled a couple of short ones.
I think one of the worst things for us was Ricky's bowling changes. No Bracken in the first 5 overs, when a change was begging to be made. And no Bracken later either when it was important to keep the net run rate down - does Ricky know how the tournament works? I haven't confirmed it either, but Ian Chappell inferred that Gayle has a history of smashing Lee, while Bracken's dismissed him a couple of times. I sound like the Bracken fan club, but if that's correct then why, Ricky, why?
This game is all about matchups, trying to bowl bowlers who the batsmen aren't comfortable facing. Nielsen and Ponting should be going through old footage and scorecards saying, right who does Jayasuriya, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Dilshan eat for breakfast and who do they struggle to get away. And change the bowling lineup accordingly rather than Lee ALWAYS getting first over.
So general message: Don't panic. It's just 20 overs of cricket where Taylor/Edwards bowled well and Gayle/Fletcher batted really well. That's the nature of the T20 game, one massive over like Gayle's off Lee almost won them the match singlehandedly. I'd say forget about it and move on, but the tournament's so damn short that we are in trouble. Ah well...
Firstly I was wrong about selection: we went with the 11 best batsmen in our squad
And then batted Mitch and Lee above Hopes Second, there will be a ton of anger at Brett Lee today and he did get smashed sure. But why on earth did Ricky bowl him for 3 overs straight up? Gayle and Fletcher were cracking every full speed ball he bowled for the first 2 overs, his only respite is they couldn't get his slower ball. But then Gayle got used to it or started to pick it - and bang there's your 27 off an over. That's just poor captaincy, letting Gayle get used to Lee for 3 overs really hurt when he had the option of bowling Bracken for a change.
Generally I thought Lee wasn't too bad. His pace seemed pretty good. His no balls were costly, but I don't think he'll ever fix those. He was guilty of bowling a couple of short ones to Gayle, but I don't think anything he bowled was going to stop his onslaught. It certainly wasn't a spell worthy of 56 being hit from it.
Thirdly, I don't think many teams would have beaten the WI today. Their batting was rampant. I could count on my hand the number of times Gayle and Fletcher found a fielder. Their placement was insanely good and their hitting was right out of the middle. Only exception of Fletcher's towering miscue that Hussey dropped. So while Aussie fans will wring hands and ask what went wrong, I think the more appropriate answer is the Windies batted really well.
Fourthly, for all the batting depth we played, it was a pretty average display and as soon as the Windies boys starting flaying the attack to all parts you knew we were 20-30 short. The embarassing thing is that the Windies gave us at LEAST 20-25 runs from fielding errors - dropping the ball over the boundary, balls going through legs etc. Australia only deserved to make 140.
Where to from here? For Christ's sake lets play another bowling option. If we aren't even going to bat Hopes at #8, get rid of him and play Hauritz. Hopes had decent figures last night, but he was lucky to not be put away by Fletcher on a couple of occasions where he bowled leg side and Fletcher couldn't get a tickle on it. Would have been wides otherwise. Everyone will argue for Lee's dropping, but I don't think you drop one of our most successful ODI bowlers ever after 3 costly overs. Of the batsmen, Ponting got a good one, Clarke looked good for his short stay, Haddin was OK. Watson is really the only guy who was bad and that was more a mindset thing, trying to impose from ball one. On the plus side for him his bowling looked decent. His pace was mid 130s and his lines were good, just bowled a couple of short ones.
I think one of the worst things for us was Ricky's bowling changes. No Bracken in the first 5 overs, when a change was begging to be made. And no Bracken later either when it was important to keep the net run rate down - does Ricky know how the tournament works? I haven't confirmed it either, but Ian Chappell inferred that Gayle has a history of smashing Lee, while Bracken's dismissed him a couple of times. I sound like the Bracken fan club, but if that's correct then why, Ricky, why?
This game is all about matchups, trying to bowl bowlers who the batsmen aren't comfortable facing. Nielsen and Ponting should be going through old footage and scorecards saying, right who does Jayasuriya, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Dilshan eat for breakfast and who do they struggle to get away. And change the bowling lineup accordingly rather than Lee ALWAYS getting first over.
So general message: Don't panic. It's just 20 overs of cricket where Taylor/Edwards bowled well and Gayle/Fletcher batted really well. That's the nature of the T20 game, one massive over like Gayle's off Lee almost won them the match singlehandedly. I'd say forget about it and move on, but the tournament's so damn short that we are in trouble. Ah well...
Lee really struggles in England, even though I didn't have him in my 1st Ashes side this match should confirm we shouldn't rush him back in. But T20 wise it was poor use of Lee letting him go for 3 overs.
Hauritz definitely has to come in, why on earth we keep going without a spinner is beyond me. They are the most economical bowlers in T20 and can pick up wickets. As I mentioned in the group thread would have liked Krejza over here as well.
It's a shame we didn't use Hilfy in the warm ups, his swing could have been very useful.
Our batting seems to lack that explosive player in the middle, Dussey is one but he keeps getting 20s and then out. Clarke showed he can score quickly in the Bangladesh warm up but hasn't really brought that to a live T20 match.
Hauritz definitely has to come in, why on earth we keep going without a spinner is beyond me. They are the most economical bowlers in T20 and can pick up wickets. As I mentioned in the group thread would have liked Krejza over here as well.
It's a shame we didn't use Hilfy in the warm ups, his swing could have been very useful.
Our batting seems to lack that explosive player in the middle, Dussey is one but he keeps getting 20s and then out. Clarke showed he can score quickly in the Bangladesh warm up but hasn't really brought that to a live T20 match.
piriyanth
International Cricketer
Why did Lee and Johnson bat above Hopes?
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
In general, the batting was a range of bad words. Inexperienced, reluctant, underconfident, unimaginative. They do not reverse sweep or paddle the ball to fine leg and several appear increasingly less confident with each spinning delivery. Michael Clarke has trimmed his game of risks to the benefit of his Test record, but he needs to differentiate between that and limited overs if he is to excel at all forms of the game.
David Hussey showed a distinct advantage over his peers in hitting Mendis for six. Having played with Mendis in the IPL, his experience was obvious. All of Mendis' wickets were the full one which straightens down the line of the stumps. Watson, who appears to struggle with googlies and doosras, missed the straight one on off stump a number of times. I do not think he would do this if he understood the strategy behind it and Mendis' proclivity for attacking the stumps.
Although the totals managed were not great, they were made to look worse by the bowling efforts. The bowling was best described by one word, 'short'.
Brett Lee was a mixed result. In the first game, he conceded a lot of runs, but when he was copping 24 from 2 overs, the onus was supremely on the captain to end him. An unlucky pair of overs then turned into a ridiculous spell. Against Sri Lanka, he twice threatened to bowl a wicket maiden, but twice could not find the confidence to bowl a yorker to seal the deal.
In contrast with Lee, Johnson didn't get a lot of confidence from the captain. In some ways it makes sense, but in the last few months Johnson has been the go-to man and it's strange to see him drop low in the pecking order. Both Johnson and Lee demonstrated all that is expected from lower order players. A fast 15 or 30 is an excellent contribution and it would be a waste to not pick the best 4, maybe even 5 bowlers on the grounds of batting.
I'm increasingly unsure of Bracken. His form is really a long way down and while he has the odd patch of cunning and accuracy, he just doesn't threaten. Compare that with Sri Lanka's Malinga and Udana; they went for runs, but they were damn well annoying enough to get wickets.
Also compare his recent feats with those of James Hopes, who is not a regular starter and a fairly questionable T20 player. In the last two seasons, Bracken has bowled 18 innings for 19 wickets, averaging 39.78 at 4.81 rpo. Hopes has bowled 19 innings for 20 wickets, averaging 33.20 at 4.51 rpo. Bracken has played 7 T20Is for 4 wickets, averaging 46.25 at 7.70 rpo. Hopes has also played 7 T20Is, but for 6 wickets, averaging 33.83 at 8.45 rpo. Even Hopes' bowling isn't something you want without his batting, so Bracken is very much undesirable right now.
Hauritz was one of the rare upsides and unfortunately the pick of the bowlers, because he was omitted initially. Detractors can argue that Clarke's figures were similarly appealing and that the main feature at play here was a ageing pitch. Still, we won't ever know if some accurate spin could have halted the West Indian openers' brutal charge. In the next week, a number of teams will ponder that concern for themselves and possibly give us some insight.
All the way, Australian fans have been bemused by glaring absences. Obviously, many were dismayed at the loss of Symonds, but some were less fazed. I personally questioned why Hilfenhaus was outside the starting XI with a T20 average of 19. Brad Hodge remains the most successful domestic T20 batsman ever and one of the greatest enigmas when he is not selected for such tournaments. So too, Shaun Tait, who was forced to rest from the IPL, before being omitted from the final World T20 squad and axed from the list of central contracts. A smaller number queried the absences of Stuart Clark and Jason Krejza. The big spinning offie was one of the stand outs in the 08/09 Big Bash and many of the best sides pack two or more spinners into their lineup. Particularly as the World Twenty20 is played on the same grounds, the importance of spin should only grow towards the final stages.
So, as always, there is no one cause for a gravely underperforming team. The lazy pundits will look most closely at the players and their skills, but many errors in forethought and planning have showed. It's safely arguable that the best possible T20 side wasn't picked and even the squad that was used did not appear to have a full range of strategies that were applicable to the game being played. One has to feel a certain empathy for the captain of such a side, because he takes the rap for it. No selector ever has to face up to the press for a bad selection.
David Hussey showed a distinct advantage over his peers in hitting Mendis for six. Having played with Mendis in the IPL, his experience was obvious. All of Mendis' wickets were the full one which straightens down the line of the stumps. Watson, who appears to struggle with googlies and doosras, missed the straight one on off stump a number of times. I do not think he would do this if he understood the strategy behind it and Mendis' proclivity for attacking the stumps.
Although the totals managed were not great, they were made to look worse by the bowling efforts. The bowling was best described by one word, 'short'.
Brett Lee was a mixed result. In the first game, he conceded a lot of runs, but when he was copping 24 from 2 overs, the onus was supremely on the captain to end him. An unlucky pair of overs then turned into a ridiculous spell. Against Sri Lanka, he twice threatened to bowl a wicket maiden, but twice could not find the confidence to bowl a yorker to seal the deal.
In contrast with Lee, Johnson didn't get a lot of confidence from the captain. In some ways it makes sense, but in the last few months Johnson has been the go-to man and it's strange to see him drop low in the pecking order. Both Johnson and Lee demonstrated all that is expected from lower order players. A fast 15 or 30 is an excellent contribution and it would be a waste to not pick the best 4, maybe even 5 bowlers on the grounds of batting.
I'm increasingly unsure of Bracken. His form is really a long way down and while he has the odd patch of cunning and accuracy, he just doesn't threaten. Compare that with Sri Lanka's Malinga and Udana; they went for runs, but they were damn well annoying enough to get wickets.
Also compare his recent feats with those of James Hopes, who is not a regular starter and a fairly questionable T20 player. In the last two seasons, Bracken has bowled 18 innings for 19 wickets, averaging 39.78 at 4.81 rpo. Hopes has bowled 19 innings for 20 wickets, averaging 33.20 at 4.51 rpo. Bracken has played 7 T20Is for 4 wickets, averaging 46.25 at 7.70 rpo. Hopes has also played 7 T20Is, but for 6 wickets, averaging 33.83 at 8.45 rpo. Even Hopes' bowling isn't something you want without his batting, so Bracken is very much undesirable right now.
Hauritz was one of the rare upsides and unfortunately the pick of the bowlers, because he was omitted initially. Detractors can argue that Clarke's figures were similarly appealing and that the main feature at play here was a ageing pitch. Still, we won't ever know if some accurate spin could have halted the West Indian openers' brutal charge. In the next week, a number of teams will ponder that concern for themselves and possibly give us some insight.
All the way, Australian fans have been bemused by glaring absences. Obviously, many were dismayed at the loss of Symonds, but some were less fazed. I personally questioned why Hilfenhaus was outside the starting XI with a T20 average of 19. Brad Hodge remains the most successful domestic T20 batsman ever and one of the greatest enigmas when he is not selected for such tournaments. So too, Shaun Tait, who was forced to rest from the IPL, before being omitted from the final World T20 squad and axed from the list of central contracts. A smaller number queried the absences of Stuart Clark and Jason Krejza. The big spinning offie was one of the stand outs in the 08/09 Big Bash and many of the best sides pack two or more spinners into their lineup. Particularly as the World Twenty20 is played on the same grounds, the importance of spin should only grow towards the final stages.
So, as always, there is no one cause for a gravely underperforming team. The lazy pundits will look most closely at the players and their skills, but many errors in forethought and planning have showed. It's safely arguable that the best possible T20 side wasn't picked and even the squad that was used did not appear to have a full range of strategies that were applicable to the game being played. One has to feel a certain empathy for the captain of such a side, because he takes the rap for it. No selector ever has to face up to the press for a bad selection.
^Pretty good sum up Angry. For all the abuse that will be thrown at our bowlers, the batting has been the underwhelming thing for me. We deserved to have made only 130 against WI but were gifted runs in the field and last night Mendis really wrecked the middle order. For a team with 7 well credentialed batsmen, the totals they've strung up are pretty woeful, even accounting for the excellent SL spinners. Against the WI it was the top losing 3/15, against SL it was the middle losing 4/35 to be 6/94. Problem is that it's hard to fix problems with a team in T20. You play so few games that it's hard to read trends or player quality.
Bowling was mostly improved this match, especially Lee. I felt sorry for Lee especially at the end. He knew Mubarak had only one shot he could hit, tried to avoid it, but got punished. Now Mubarak's cameo is hailed, but honestly that was a pretty poor innings - quality wise. He couldn't connect on the leg glance, or the cut. But one or 2 smears over midwicket is all it takes to play a 'great' T20 innings.
Same for Bracken too. His last over was good, bowling good yorkers. But he still got taken for 10. Called for the wide when he overreacted on seeing Sanga charge and then beautifully paddled/flicked over fine leg from a yorker right on his stumps. Not much you can do about that, as bowler or captain. At the beginning of the innings though Bracks couldn't land them quite right. He's bowling just OK at the moment, not the brilliant bowling of summers past.
Hauritz was a revelation and shows the folly of trying to play in this format without a spinner.
But the Aussies aren't sure how to bowl in the first 6 overs and were punished again. Mitch Johnson bowled poorly last night. He was either wide or full or short. Never really got it right. Watson got targeted by Dilshan but Ponting did him no favours by taking the third man out after one ball. Where's he supposed to bowl Ricky? No surprise a backing away Dilshan got 4 through third man, any edge in that area would have been 4 with the man up. That and a couple of ramp shots back over Haddin's head and suddenly Australia have conceded another flyer.
Hard to point out what went wrong in this campaign really. The squad has quality players, but I think generally the approach is too orthodox. Not enough players trying to innovate eg. batsmen with different shots - most of the Aussies play a very orthodox game. Even guys like Haddin and Warner considered 'loose' in technique still hit far more "normally" than most other teams. Or bowlers changing up with different deliveries eg. Jerome Taylor and Udana totally flummoxed the Aussies with their very slow slower balls - something the boys could work on perhaps rather than just having one fast, stock ball and one slower ball. Or even captains innovating with different bowling changes, trying to get the best matchups between bowler and batsman. Lee to Gayle for 3 overs was just stupid, and sometimes taking the pace off at the start with a Michael Clarke might work.
But in saying that, fairly orthodox cricket should still win you T20 games - and it has done for Australia in the past. Hard to say much when it's all over so fast. Less than 80 overs of cricket and we're out.
Bowling was mostly improved this match, especially Lee. I felt sorry for Lee especially at the end. He knew Mubarak had only one shot he could hit, tried to avoid it, but got punished. Now Mubarak's cameo is hailed, but honestly that was a pretty poor innings - quality wise. He couldn't connect on the leg glance, or the cut. But one or 2 smears over midwicket is all it takes to play a 'great' T20 innings.
Same for Bracken too. His last over was good, bowling good yorkers. But he still got taken for 10. Called for the wide when he overreacted on seeing Sanga charge and then beautifully paddled/flicked over fine leg from a yorker right on his stumps. Not much you can do about that, as bowler or captain. At the beginning of the innings though Bracks couldn't land them quite right. He's bowling just OK at the moment, not the brilliant bowling of summers past.
Hauritz was a revelation and shows the folly of trying to play in this format without a spinner.
But the Aussies aren't sure how to bowl in the first 6 overs and were punished again. Mitch Johnson bowled poorly last night. He was either wide or full or short. Never really got it right. Watson got targeted by Dilshan but Ponting did him no favours by taking the third man out after one ball. Where's he supposed to bowl Ricky? No surprise a backing away Dilshan got 4 through third man, any edge in that area would have been 4 with the man up. That and a couple of ramp shots back over Haddin's head and suddenly Australia have conceded another flyer.
Hard to point out what went wrong in this campaign really. The squad has quality players, but I think generally the approach is too orthodox. Not enough players trying to innovate eg. batsmen with different shots - most of the Aussies play a very orthodox game. Even guys like Haddin and Warner considered 'loose' in technique still hit far more "normally" than most other teams. Or bowlers changing up with different deliveries eg. Jerome Taylor and Udana totally flummoxed the Aussies with their very slow slower balls - something the boys could work on perhaps rather than just having one fast, stock ball and one slower ball. Or even captains innovating with different bowling changes, trying to get the best matchups between bowler and batsman. Lee to Gayle for 3 overs was just stupid, and sometimes taking the pace off at the start with a Michael Clarke might work.
But in saying that, fairly orthodox cricket should still win you T20 games - and it has done for Australia in the past. Hard to say much when it's all over so fast. Less than 80 overs of cricket and we're out.
We are still a long way off from being competitive in T20. Looking at the KFC bash, their isn't anyone putting their hand up apart from Hodge and Nannes.
We lack the x-factor bowler like a Malinga or Taylor. Johnson I thought would be that guy but he still has a bit to learn in the T20 format. Nannes could have given us that factor, and even though he hasn't been at his high standards over the past 2 months, he is better than Bracken and Lee easily. We also should have taken Krezja, and why on earth we keep dropping our spinner I will never know.
Batting also lacks experience in T20, Ponting and Clarke might be better if they actually played T20s. Hodge had to be picked, he is in the top 3 batsmen in the world for T20. He managed to rescue the crap KKR side and that is what we needed in our past 2 matches. Who knows what we could have done with him being the stable anchor at one end with Warner/Dussey firing.
We lack the x-factor bowler like a Malinga or Taylor. Johnson I thought would be that guy but he still has a bit to learn in the T20 format. Nannes could have given us that factor, and even though he hasn't been at his high standards over the past 2 months, he is better than Bracken and Lee easily. We also should have taken Krezja, and why on earth we keep dropping our spinner I will never know.
Batting also lacks experience in T20, Ponting and Clarke might be better if they actually played T20s. Hodge had to be picked, he is in the top 3 batsmen in the world for T20. He managed to rescue the crap KKR side and that is what we needed in our past 2 matches. Who knows what we could have done with him being the stable anchor at one end with Warner/Dussey firing.
Have to agree. Missed a trick with Hodge. And even when Symmo left the selectors had the opportunity to call him. In hindsight a team of domestic players led by maybe Haddin or Clarke would've been better. Probably would've lost but it would give some good experience to the fringe players. Guys like Doherty, Quiney, Smith, Manou and co could've been given some good international experience. Fresh blood is always the key and thats how India won the twenty20 world cup and success abroad- a new pipeline of players and talent.
Yea might have been worth giving more youngsters a go. Right now we are picking based on the Ashes and partly just sticking with the ODI side. Until we take the T20 format more seriously we won't be troubling anyone in this format.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Carseldine scored 4 50s
