)Hmm , well I'll have 20 overs of Doherty and 10 of Watson instead.I think selectors would have strongly consider 4 bowlers if Harris was fit.^Not only that but Watson seems in pretty good nick with the ball, just coming off a 5-fer and a couple of years ago he took 7 at the Gabba for the Bulls. If they play 4 quicks, then Watson is basically wasted, and you'd be seeing a lot more North. Just depends what the captain and selectors want really:
20 overs a day of Doherty and 10 of Watson vs
15 overs of Siddle and 15 of North (15 because of overrate pressures
Take your pick Ricky.
I agree with you 100% on this one. The only thing that this is going to do is make both players more nervous and on edge. Im not a fan on wholesale chopping and changing, I mean we saw English sides do this throughout the 90s and early 2000s, where theyd axe half their team and replace them and so on and all it did was create instability and uncertainty. I believe players play more confidently and are more focused when they are reassured of their position; you only change if its for the better. Is Xavier Doherty really that much better, his first class average is the same as Hauritz's! I think this decision should have been made at the start of last summer..the Ashes are won a year before the series is played, we saw that in 2006 with England's preparations. The Aussie selectors should have decided on their choice of spinner at the start of last summer and stuck with them. Mind you I thought the India series was always going to count against Hauritz; he copped a bit of a hammering but it was always going to be difficult for him. India are the best players of spin in the world and Hauritz didnt have alot of experience in bowling to them. In saying that he didnt show much in terms of strategy. I just get the feeling that the expectations were a bit too high; hes not shane warne and to be fair no one ever said he was. So therefore it should be no surprise that he didnt roll through India.
