I'd say he should be dropped if we are thinking of moving him.
If you are relying on part timers to win you a WC then there is something seriously wrong with the bowling.
Australia
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
I'd say he should be dropped if we are thinking of moving him.
If you are relying on part timers to win you a WC then there is something seriously wrong with the bowling.
Australia might opt for all-out pace at Cup
Now that is gambling the house. I'd be hoping Bollinger gets back to his best as a Lee, Tait and Johnson pace trio is too much of a gamble for my liking especially on the Sub-Cont wickets. Else Hastings will need to prove himself, don't trust in Siddle at all but looks like hes a certainty.
Now that is gambling the house. I'd be hoping Bollinger gets back to his best as a Lee, Tait and Johnson pace trio is too much of a gamble for my liking especially on the Sub-Cont wickets. Else Hastings will need to prove himself, don't trust in Siddle at all but looks like hes a certainty.
I don't think anyone's saying that. It's just that the selectors obviously see Marsh, Ferguson and Dussey as equals with the bat. How are you going to break that tie? Given that Ponting, Mussey, and sometimes Clarke can't bowl it makes sense to break the tie with the 'can be a 6th/7th bowler' idea.
What more concerns me about that though is that I'm guessing Australia are positioning themselves to try and get away with 4 quicks plus Smith/Dhussey for their 50 overs. With Watson in reserve, or not even playing Smith and using Clarke/Dussey as the spin attack with the Husseys at 6 and 7. Australia's ODI team was crap before when they tried that, between the Hogg and Hauritz eras. There were other factors as well, yes, but not playing a proper spinner left a hole in the attack IMHO. I think Hauritz would do a good job in this WC and I think he'll be screwed over again if Ponting and Hilditch don't want to use him.
Given we are down to our bare bones with pacemen not even they could go with 4 pacemen plus Watson this time. Especially given Hopes seems to be out of favour. I do agree though, no way we should not play a specialist spinner.
If they were equal I'd go to how they performed in the International arena. Ferguson easily wins that so really the part time bowling shouldn't come into it.
ferg512
International Coach
Can I just ask why Nannes is not in any sides?? Not even the current twenty20 team, on the sub-continent he would be a much better bet than Tait.
For some reason Nannes hasn't been as good in this format. This season is probably his best and even then hes averaging 29. To put it into perspective, in 6 matches this season Nannes has 10 wickets. In half those matches Hastings has 9. The two reasons I can see for Nannes not being in the T20 side is a) He isn't in the frame for the WC b) They are preparing for the future.
Yeah agree with that. I think Ferguson is the unlucky one here, not Marsh. Marsh has been a bit meh recently. Ferguson OTOH was looking like a 10 year player before he did his knee.
But thinking about Dussey more, I think the selectors are looking at him for the all-rounder/#7 spot to compete with Smith (he might bat higher than #7 though). That way Dussey, Clarke and Watson share the other 10 overs while the 4 specialists bowl the other 40. So if that's true, then Dussey isn't even being compared to Marsh by the selectors - they are competing for different roles. It would be like saying Marsh has been overlooked because he can't wicket keep. It's true - but not an accurate reflection of the battle for spots.
If Dussey does win the all-rounder spot, they could still play Smith as the specialist spinner at #8, but that would be harsh on Haury and Xavier. Speaking of, I can't believe they've picked both Haury and Xavier for this current ODI squad. There's no time for a competition right now - the WC squad has to be announced next week. And you'll never play both at once during this series. Pick one and go with it guys...
And more generally, I just can't believe there needs to be too much change with the Aussie team. Australia is the #1 ranked ODI nation at present and they were one good (flukey?) Malinga innings away from winning their last series against a good team. And that was a badly scheduled series, when Cricket Australia clearly had their priorities elsewhere.
From what I gather Paine is a given so all the batsmen will be competing for that last batting spot. If that is the case then I would go Christian or Hodge for that last spot. Hodge gives a straight replacement for opener or 3 plus would handle the 7 spot alright. Also bowls so that fits the criteria. Christian would make a handy 7, hes the most likely of our players to smack a quickfire 50 from number 7 and of course he bowls.
Anyway if I had my way I'd be going
Haddin
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
White
Hussey
Smith
Lee
Johnson
Bollinger
Doherty/Hauritz
Christian/Ferguson
Hodge
Hastings
Hauritz/Doherty/Tait
Anyway if I had my way I'd be going
Haddin
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
White
Hussey
Smith
Lee
Johnson
Bollinger
Doherty/Hauritz
Christian/Ferguson
Hodge
Hastings
Hauritz/Doherty/Tait
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
IIRC that between Hogg-Haurtiz era was barely as year. AUS won played:
- in WI 08 & won
- vs BANG in AUS & won
- lost vs SA in AUS
- drew vs NZ in AUS
Then Hauritz came in during the ODI series in SA.
Those series lost & draw vs SA (home & away) & NZ was a period when AUS had a lot of main players injured & the selectors decided to rest a few key players. So it was never really a problem with not having a specialist spinner, since by the end of 2009 when everyone was back fully fit AUS won the champions trophy.
Also when AUS played ENG just recently. They looked superb with this XI without playing a spinner in a few ODIs:
5th ODI: England v Australia at Lord's, Jul 3, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
5th ODI: England v Australia at Lord's, Jul 3, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Just replace Hopes with Hastings.
So no IMO AUS playing an all-pace attack for most of the games in the world cup wont be a gamble at all. Hauritz would come in depending on that state of pitch in certain games.
----------
Both stupid reasons to be frank.
Haha lets not kid ourseleves we talking about one of the best T20 bowlers in the world here who would into any world team ODI side & this crop of AUS selectors have really treated Nannes ridiculously, starting way back from his horrific exclusion from the 2009 T20 WC which made him play for Holland.
Nannes should definately be in the frame for the WC. Their is no logical reason for Siddle to be ahead of him for example in the ODI sides. If now Tait breaks down in the ODI series vs ENG & Nannes isn't picked as his replacement for the WC that would be atrocious.
Plus all this building for the future talk that seems to encapsulating all AUS team talks is these days since the Ashes debacle is also way over the top. They should not be looking any further than taking this rebuilding process one series @ a time. Which would mean until Nannes shows actual decline in his bowling he should remain the leading new-ball bowler in the T20 side.
Going by the 1st ODI side named this looks to be our WC squad.
Watson
Haddin
Ponting
Clarke
White
Hussey
Smith
Johnson
Hauritz
Lee
Siddle
Paine
Dussey
Siddle
Doherty/Tait
Doherty and Tait will have the 1st ODI to grab their spots.
Watson
Haddin
Ponting
Clarke
White
Hussey
Smith
Johnson
Hauritz
Lee
Siddle
Paine
Dussey
Siddle
Doherty/Tait
Doherty and Tait will have the 1st ODI to grab their spots.
Yeah your history is pretty good
. The Hogg-Hauritz gap wasn't a big one, but I thought the attack balance was bad that's all. And when Hauritz came in the team looked better - generally better, and better equipped to handle different conditions and different situations. That's what balance is about.And on those England ODIs where 3 quicks, Watson, Hopes and Smith played: Yep Australia did well in those couple of games, but it wasn't because they didn't play a 'proper' spinner, it's because the fast bowlers they did play were EXCELLENT. If your 3 main quicks bowl really well like Tait, Bollinger and Harris did in those couple of games (Lord's, The Oval), then it barely matters who your 4th and 5th bowlers are because they are coming on when it's going well. So I think using those couple of games as some kind of universal truth is a bit misleading because you are rarely going to see your fast bowling trio do so well.
Both stupid reasons to be frank.
Haha lets not kid ourseleves we talking about one of the best T20 bowlers in the world here who would into any world team ODI side & this crop of AUS selectors have really treated Nannes ridiculously, starting way back from his horrific exclusion from the 2009 T20 WC which made him play for Holland.
No need to call them stupid. Your reasons aren't Steven Hawking category either. After all, saying Nannes is awesome at T20 therefore should be awesome at ODIs is just like saying Siddle is awesome at Tests therefore should be awesome at ODIs - yet you dismiss the case for Siddle outright. I don't personally believe that Siddle is better than Nannes at ODIs but I make those statements to point out your logic is a bit twisted just so you can support Nannes.
Not that there's anything wrong with supporting Nannes
I like Nannes too, but right now Nannes is 4th (or maybe even 5th) on the 'really fast, but can be loose' bowler list for Australia behind Lee, Tait, Johnson and sometimes Bollinger. Australia wants to blood a steadier bowler IMO - not another tearaway who can't bowl 6 balls in the same spot. THAT'S why he's missing out.
formula1man
International Cricketer
This will be our side but it will be crap and we will be knocked out very early on.
1 – Watson
2 – Haddin
3 – Ponting
4 – Clarke
5 – White
6 – Hussey
7 – Smith
8 – Hauritz
9 – Johnson
10 – Lee
11 – Siddle
R – Hastings
R – Paine
R – Dussey
R – Tait
This is what I would like to see
1 – Haddin
2 – Marsh
3 – Watson
4 – Clarke
5 – White
6 – MHussey
7 – Christian
8 – Johnson
9 – Lee
10 – Hauritz
11 – Hastings
R – Ferguson
R – Tait
R – Doherty/Harris
R – Paine
So thats
Marsh for Ponting
Christian for Smith
Doherty or Harris for Siddle
Ferguson for Dussey
1 – Watson
2 – Haddin
3 – Ponting
4 – Clarke
5 – White
6 – Hussey
7 – Smith
8 – Hauritz
9 – Johnson
10 – Lee
11 – Siddle
R – Hastings
R – Paine
R – Dussey
R – Tait
This is what I would like to see
1 – Haddin
2 – Marsh
3 – Watson
4 – Clarke
5 – White
6 – MHussey
7 – Christian
8 – Johnson
9 – Lee
10 – Hauritz
11 – Hastings
R – Ferguson
R – Tait
R – Doherty/Harris
R – Paine
So thats
Marsh for Ponting
Christian for Smith
Doherty or Harris for Siddle
Ferguson for Dussey
Last edited:
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Yeah your history is pretty good
And on those England ODIs where 3 quicks, Watson, Hopes and Smith played: Yep Australia did well in those couple of games, but it wasn't because they didn't play a 'proper' spinner, it's because the fast bowlers they did play were EXCELLENT. If your 3 main quicks bowl really well like Tait, Bollinger and Harris did in those couple of games (Lord's, The Oval), then it barely matters who your 4th and 5th bowlers are because they are coming on when it's going well. So I think using those couple of games as some kind of universal truth is a bit misleading because you are rarely going to see your fast bowling trio do so well.
Why?. It may be rare for other sides, but AUS in ODIs regularly have always been able to have 3 strong ODI fast-bowlers at one time. Dont see why that suddenly wont be the case during the world cup (although Harris will be missed).
Lee is clearly back as we saw in the first ODI. Just need Johnson/Tait/Bollinger to get themselves in order for the WC during the next 6 ODIs & we will be fine.
A good T20 bowler should be a ODI bowler, especially when bowling @ the death. Since bowling in T20 is like bowling in last 10 overs of a 50 over game/power-play overs & Nannes is perfect at that.
Plus he also swings the new-ball & gets wickets. So you really have the perfect package.
Siddle however in his ODI career hardly swings the white ball ball & is not exactly great @ bowling @ the death. He still has alot of work to do to be considered for an ODI place.
So no twisted logic. The selectors have treated Nannes stupidy all his career since thanks to an abundance of quick bowling options, they have under-rated what a quality bowler they have. Plus his age also.
Not that there's anything wrong with supporting Nannes
The steady seamer was Harris, who also was 90 mph. Now that he is injured no other bowler in the country (especially Siddle) cant give us that right now & we certainly dont have time to blood anyone in that role - just back your strenght.
In ODI cricket the best way to keep the runs down is to take wickets. Lee, Tait, Johnson & Bollinger or Nannes will blow away most teams in the WC once they are bowling well. If teams where to dominate them, that wont be a problem for me since id know they did it against AUS best bowling attack.
I just think that ALL 3 fast bowlers bowling well happens way less than people think.
Doing a quick browse of the Australia games in the last 2 years and going purely off stats, in the last 2 years I see:
v NZ Perth '09 (Tait, Bracken, Johnson)
v Pak Dubai '09 (Bracken, Hilfy, S.Clark)
v Pak Abu Dhabi '09 (Bracken, Hilfy, S.Clark)
v Pak Abu Dhabi '09 (Bracken, Bollinger, S.Clark)
v Scot Edinburgh '09 (Lee, Nannes, Johnson)
v Eng Lord's '09 (Lee, Bracken, Johnson)
V NZ Centurion '09 (Lee, Siddle, Johnson)
v Pak Sydney '10 (Siddle, Bollinger, McKay)
v Pak Adelaide '10 (Bollinger, Harris, McKay)
v Pak Perth '10 (Harris, Johnson, McKay)
v WI Melbourne '10 (Harris, Johnson, Bollinger)
V WI Adelaide '10 (Bollinger, Johnson, McKay)
V WI Melbourne '10 (Bollinger, Harris, McKay)
v NZ Hamilton '10 (Harris, Bollinger, Johnson)
v Eng The Oval '10 (Tait, Bollinger, Harris)
v Eng Lord's '10 (Tait, Bollinger, Harris)
v SL Brisbane '10 (McKay, Johnson, Starc)
That's 17 games out of 65 ODIs in the last 2 years (about 25%) where the 3 fast bowlers did well in the same game. I defined 'well' as either: 1) at least one wicket and economy of less than 5, OR 2) if economy was over 5 but they took at least 3 wickets at less than 20 per wicket OR 3) no wickets but economy of less than 4 per over. Didn't count Watson or Hopes. I was looking at how often all 3 SPECIALIST quicks did well in the same match - they don't play as fast bowlers.
You'll notice how often these good all-round bowling performances came against poor batting sides. Australia's played India, SA, SL and England 35 times in the last 2 years yet only 4 of those performances I listed came against those opponents. The other 30 games v Pak, NZ, WI and 1 each v Scotland and Ireland produced the bulk of the good fast bowling. So I think just loading up with fast bowlers and assuming they'll knock over the good sides is a mistake. There needs to be a better plan than 'we'll just stun the world with pure pace'. It'll work against Pakistan and the other lesser sides, but at some stage there is going to be good batting teams to play and they are going to handle that pace most of the time.
And for those tallying up the names, here's who features most:
9 - Johnson
9 - Bollinger
7 - Harris
6 - McKay
5 - Bracken
3 - Tait
3 - Lee
3 - Clark
2 - Siddle
2 - Hilfenhaus
1 - Starc
1 - Nannes
So it's no surprise really that Johnson, Bollinger, Tait, Lee and Siddle are the favoured 5 at present. Harris and McKay are injured. Bracken and Clark are finished. That leaves the other 5 as the top performers in the last couple of years.
Last edited:
