I think it was Athers (or Nasser) who summed it up perfectly. Smiths there because Australia's bowling attack cannot be trusted to routinely bowl out sides while their batting can't be trusted to not collapse in a heap. So they went down the bits and pieces route but Smith's not of a level to be good enough to fill the gap. You know that there's problems when you're throwing people who do a bit of both in without excelling.
I wonder what Haddin thinks being lower in the order to him.
Couldn't quite understand Smith's inclusion myself, doesn't look like a batsman and doesn't look like a bowler and doesn't look (at the moment) like he'd cut it as an all-rounder. The suggestion he's batting two places too high says it all to me, not a good enough batsman yet not included as a bowler.
With Clarke and Ponting out of sorts, with Katich not playing very well and then out injured, Australia needed some batting strength from somewhere. Three seamers have taken 10+ wickets, all but one of Siddle's wickets have come in his two 6wis which in one sense is good and in another very bad (means he's only really taken wickets in two of the six innings they've had to bowl)
I still maintain Hauritz gets a raw deal on here, and maybe overall. I don't think anyone has ever claimed he is world class, but then the aussies ain't exactly brimming with world class performers at the moment. I've a vague recollection of War arguing the toss over this, but I think it's been established in this thread he argues the toss over anything he doesn't agree with
As for England, well some would claim you don't change a winning side. I say in cricket you do because the team performance is made up of individual performances and when say Cook, Anderson or Tremlett don't turn up, you need others to and some just aren't cutting it - well, like when we won it in 2005 it's only one or two not really performing and one in particular doing a Bell 2005.
In 2005 Bell scored 171 runs @ 17.10. He did take eight catches so wasn't entirely a passenger, but he was in as a batsman and England were lucky enough of the rest of the team performed for England to scrape two wins.
In 2009 Collingwood has scored 70 runs @ 14.00. He has taken seven catches so you could argue is never entirely a passenger, but he is in as a batsman and is lucky the rest of the team has performed and the aussies haven't. His batting average against the aussies is a mere 30.80, take out that 206 in 06/07 and it's 564 runs at a paltry 23.50 which is more reflective of his average performance against them.
If England wish to win the series and not just retain the Ashes, looking to draw the Test is what I fear may cost England with overcautious tactics and approach, then I think Collingwood has to be dropped. The rest of the side have done enough, whether to choose Bresnan or recall Finn is a toughie, but to be honest I think Broad's injury was a bit of luck England needed and I'm not sure it will make much difference which of the two replacing him is selected.
Almost a shame this couldn't have gone into the last match level, not that the aussies would deserve that. What should perhaps act as a wake up call to England is that the aussies have been pretty ordinary at best most of the time and could still draw the series.........................
hahaha.
It has more value than other series for obvious reasons.