Dec 16-20: 3rd Test - Australia v England at Perth

[sami ullah khan]

Depends on how much you paid them

but in all seriousness the Pakitan batting line up that went to Australia was beyond pathetic. Umar Akmel, Farhat, Afridi, can't even name the others all give their wickets away with ridiculous video game shots.

Also they all tried to attack Hauritz so they would not have to attack any of the decent Aussie bowlers and it was their own incompetence (not Hauritzs skill) that led to their demise.

Exactly my thoughts on hauritz's performance against Pakistan. That was our weakest batting line up of all time. I am sure Clarke would have taken more wickets if he had bowled. He is a better bowler than Haurtiz though.

 

[pcfan123]

This story is made-up tabloid garbage. The extent of the truth is that he was having a garage sale and the reporter asked for souvenirs while Hauritz went through a box of gear. The gear was not part of the sale. He hasn't ditched all his gear after being dropped. The reporter did not interview Hauritz nor even introduce himself as a journalist (which in all fairness would have been a bit of a fib).

sorry to have contributed to this kind of nonsense, I just found it funny

 

[sifter132]

This story is made-up tabloid garbage. The extent of the truth is that he was having a garage sale and the reporter asked for souvenirs while Hauritz went through a box of gear. The gear was not part of the sale. He hasn't ditched all his gear after being dropped. The reporter did not interview Hauritz nor even introduce himself as a journalist (which in all fairness would have been a bit of a fib).

That makes WAY more sense. Damn journalists...

 

[midgetwars]

If the claim by the selectors are true, then they are total imbeciles.
I think rotating bowlers ONLY WORKS if all bowlers are performing therefore having a rest. I remember once, Mcgrath, Lee, tait, johnson, siddle, Clark were all being rotated. Not Sure, but it was an ODI.

Australia seriously needs to reconsider the line up

Marsh
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Haddin
Smith
O'Keefe
Johnson
Copeland

Obviously, not in the middle of the ashes but this team can seriously bat and bowl. Most Ideal for SCG.

But why not seriously bring in copeland?

 

[Owzat]

I think that is a load of crap and just covering their tracks. If Johnson had been the one to pick up 7 in Brisbane, no way would he have sat out in Adelaide.

And Johnsons reaction was that of a man dropped, not being rested.

Is there such a thing as resting a player at nil-nil in the series that neither participant wants to lose?

Is it a coincidence that bowlers who have poor records in the 1st Test get dropped and in the 2nd Test the same happens?!?!?

1st Test : Johnson 0/170 and a duck dropped, Hilfenhaus 1/142 dropped

2nd Test : North 49 runs in 3 inns dropped, Bollinger 1/130 dropped, Doherty 3/306 dropped

I think the "rested" line was used only because they brought back bowlers rather than looked elsewhere, perhaps realising their mistake or realising they were 0-1 down in the series and both batting and bowling look frail. Funnily enough Ponting (70 runs), Katich (97 runs) and Clarke (91 runs) are hardly in fantastic form with the bat either. Harris and Siddle are averaging over 40 with the ball, that in spite of Siddle's 6/54 in the 1st Test.

The aussie selectors would have been better off making no comment, or simply said "Johnson did not do enough in the 1st Test and so we decided to change the attack" - although the aussies will have used at least 15 players after just three Tests. I doubt they'll use as many as England in 1989, but by aussie standards that's a rotating door selection policy

Ashes series - players used (side won the series in brackets)

2009 AUS 14-15 ENG (ENG)
06/07 AUS 12-14 ENG (AUS)
2005 AUS 13-12 ENG (ENG)
02/03 AUS 14-17 ENG (AUS)
2001 AUS 13-19 ENG (AUS)
98/99 AUS 16-17 ENG (AUS)
1997 AUS 14-18 ENG (AUS)
94/95 AUS 15-16 ENG (AUS)
1993 AUS 13-24 ENG (AUS)
90/91 AUS 14-16 ENG (AUS)
1989 AUS 12-29 ENG (AUS)
86/87 AUS 17-13 ENG (ENG)
1985 AUS 16-17 ENG (ENG)

If you consider the tour party is what, 17, England used 16, 16, 17 and 17 on tour between 90/91 and 02/03. Of course 17 doesn't include call-ups, but it's nothing compared to 29, 24, 18, and 19 at home between 1989 and 2001. England only used 12 players in 2005 because Jones was injured, although they might have played the extra batsman anyway

 

[angryangy]

sorry to have contributed to this kind of nonsense, I just found it funny

Not like you or anyone would have known at the time. It's just unfortunate that we are sometimes left to decide if news is really news or just a pretentious form of blogging.

 

[Sureshot]

We used 29 players in '89?

 

[Little Punter]

My XI for the Perth test is

1. Phillip Hughes
2. Shane Watson
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Michael Clarke
5. Michael Hussey
6. Brad Haddin
7. Steve Smith
8. Mitchell Johnson
9. Ryan Harris
10. Ben Hilfenhaus
11. Doug Bollinger

I wasnt sure about Peter Siddle having really only had the one good spell thus far so i left him out. Playing 4 quicks i think would work because the little damage that has been done wicket wise has all been done by the them. Aswell as Smith could be used to bowl as many as needed. I'm just reluctant about putting Beer in. Last but not least, batting Haddin at 6. I think he has a great technique and would suite the number 6 spot better than smith.

If anyone thinks differently, please tell me

 

[aussie1st]

If you are going the 4 pacemen then Siddle has to be in there since Bollinger isn't in the squad.

 

[aussie1st]

Siddle in the gun has greats fuming | Fox Sports

Sounds like Siddle won't be playing tomorrow. Best choice as I stated earlier, don't need Johnson and Siddle in the same side leaking the runs, unlucky for Siddle because he has at least done something compared to Johnson.

 

[RoboRocks]

Siddle in the gun has greats fuming | Fox Sports

Sounds like Siddle won't be playing tomorrow. Best choice as I stated earlier, don't need Johnson and Siddle in the same side leaking the runs, unlucky for Siddle because he has at least done something compared to Johnson.

Seems a strange selection. Australia are struggling to take wickets, so why would you want to leave out the one bowler with any genuine success?

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Aus won this game. I have a bad feeling about England's attack with possibly Bresnan coming in and Anderson struggling with fatigue traveling home. Plus the batsmen didn't look to clever against Victoria. Hmm....

 

[War]

Siddle in the gun has greats fuming | Fox Sports

Sounds like Siddle won't be playing tomorrow. Best choice as I stated earlier, don't need Johnson and Siddle in the same side leaking the runs, unlucky for Siddle because he has at least done something compared to Johnson.

Well of course its not like Beer is going to keep it tight as most predict he will get smoked.

Although its true preferably in a 4-man pace attack you dont want BOTH Siddle & Johnson in it. Thats farrr better than having Beer in.

Has Kim Hughes rightfully said in that article. What if Johnson continues to struggle?. That would leave AUS with two quicks plus Watson & an inexperienced dud spinner - which is suicide.

Maybe Trent Copeland should have been called up after all.

 

[Slowcoach]

Left arm spinners do well at the WACA, even Dan Marsh took 7-57 there once and we should all know how crap he was.
Might be something to do with the breeze, combined with the bounce and the dry wicket or something.

So Beer is not such a bad selection, I have never seen him bowl, but he's gotta be better than Doherty. He seems tallish, always a good trait for a left arm spinner.

I saw O'Keefe bowl, and I know he took wickets, but I didn't think much of him, not much flight, not much spin, too short to get bounce.
We need a spinner who can take wickets, not someone who can "keep it tight" and "bat a bit".

12 runs from O'Keefe is not going to make up for the fact he doesn't take wickets, taking 4-150 and scoring 0 is going to save you more runs than taking 2-120 and scoring 12, so if you pick a spinner who can get wickets you are going to come out on the plus side.
That said, giving up 358 runs is a little expensive...you know who you are...

 

[RoboRocks]

Australia shouldn't be opting for Beer this early. If they don't get a result in Perth, then they could let loose.

Seriously though, they need to pick their four best seamers and leave the spin bowling to Smith.

 

[angryangy]

Left arm spinners do well at the WACA, even Dan Marsh took 7-57 there once and we should all know how crap he was.
Might be something to do with the breeze, combined with the bounce and the dry wicket or something.

So Beer is not such a bad selection, I have never seen him bowl, but he's gotta be better than Doherty. He seems tallish, always a good trait for a left arm spinner.

I saw O'Keefe bowl, and I know he took wickets, but I didn't think much of him, not much flight, not much spin, too short to get bounce.
We need a spinner who can take wickets, not someone who can "keep it tight" and "bat a bit".

12 runs from O'Keefe is not going to make up for the fact he doesn't take wickets, taking 4-150 and scoring 0 is going to save you more runs than taking 2-120 and scoring 12, so if you pick a spinner who can get wickets you are going to come out on the plus side.
That said, giving up 358 runs is a little expensive...you know who you are...

Where did this number 12 come from? He's made 4 50s in 10 matches; I'd suggest he is capable of scoring more than 12 fairly consistently.

The major problem with O'Keefe is that, not unlike Warner, he's been with NSW about five years and yet he's got a better chance of getting picked for Aus A than NSW. If he could actually make 700+ runs in a season as a top 7 batsman, we simply don't know.