McDonald at least offered economy, Henriques won't offer too much with the ball. Losing Faulkner certainly hurt if they were thinking that. By the sounds of it Pattinson is going real well in the practice game and Bird looked good in the Big Bash so if we were going 4 quicks one of them would be the ideal.
Probably a better approach with Patto/Bird as your 4th quick, I just had McDonald on the brain AND the selection of Glenn Maxwell in India where Australia played 3 bowlers, plus Maxwell, Henriques and Watson. Didn't work there - Australia got rissoled twice...
Maxwell got 4 wickets, just so happened India were already 200 in front by that stage! Not worth very much in other words... Just warning fans that the extra batter is an option so they don't rage too much if it happens
Although apparently Henriques bowled pretty well in the nets vs Clarke the other day. Dark horse perhaps.
Phil Hughes must be selected to play in the first Test match against South Africa and bat at number 3, in my opinion.
Shane Watson simply hasn't been making the big scores in the first innings you need from the number 3 batsman in your team. The number 3 position in the team is the most important because if your openers fail the number 3 batsman has the chance to make a big score and stay at the middle, so you don't leave your order middle order exposed. Watson's scores with the bat in the Ashes against England were 22, 6, 51, 18, 103, 83*, and 43. His two highest scores of 103 and 83* were in the second innings when the work had already been done and the pressure was off. That means his highest score in the first innings was 51, which almost sums up his career with the bat, he gets in and makes a start and then finds a way to get out. Add that with him frequently getting injured and limiting how much he can bowl, it makes me wonder why the selectors keep on picking him? Other batsman would of been dropped by now but because he is an all-rounder he seems to be a 'protected species'. This is odd considering there are other capable and younger all-rounders out there like James Faulkner (once he is fit), Moises Henriques and Mitch Marsh.
As for Watson, A) if he can't bowl he hasn't been picked. The only time he's been picked as a batsmn only was India last year. Otherwise he has bowled in 47 of his 51 Tests, and B) he's always been better in the 2nd innings than the first. Look up his record in all forms and you'll see he always does better chasing etc. I think bowling on a pitch helps him bat on it, if that makes sense. As for his spot, I personally would hate for Watson to be moved now, when he's finally shown the odd spark or two at
#3 . Especially for Doolan who is basically Watson v2.0, with the same foibles ie. can't convert, plays across his front pad a lot.
And if Hughes is going to play there is merit in putting him down at 6, otherwise you would have a run of Clarke, Smith, Watson, Haddin - all right handers. Given Peterson spins away from them, he would fancy his chances of capitalising on overconfidence from the Aussie right handers - all of who've been known to push a bit too hard vs spin on occasion.
A lot of that is putting facts to my view though, I will totally acknowledge that Hughes at 3 and Watson at 6 wouldn't be bad at all.
Hughes top scored in the inter-squad game they had yesterday too
Made 83. Next best score was Watson with 34.
