Although i agree with the idea in premise that Howard is trying to perpetuate across the board for AUS quick bowlers, it makes no sense with Harris.
The man is AUS version of Bond, Flintoff, Akhtar with regards to his knee injury. Once he is fit he has to play and that's how AUS have to deal with him, until he himself feels he cant handle tests anymore.
Given he is 32 and doesn't have long more, i dont see the logic behind trying to make him perfect unless they can find him a new knee - which obviously wont happen.
He is the spearhead and the risk was already taken to make him the attack leader for tests given the lack of options post 2010 Ashes, when realistically most already knew his body couldn't take him.
Harris's body can only last T20s and ODIs properly, but AUS still need him to lead the attack and I seriously hope Howard's decision is revisited and Harris is playing the 1st test against India.
I really didn't understand what Howard was talking about:
How?? Is my question. How does one look at Harris and say, oh he could only last 2 or 3 days? They must have some mighty precise medical tools these days to know that. I'm with you though mate, if they think he can get through a Test match he needs to play. Talking about being 100% if fair enough for the kids, but for the best bowler, he needs to play whenever he's able to string a few spells together.We know we could rush him back quickly and get him bowling for two or three days
Managed to catch some highlights earlier today. Pattison looks a real find - has the build and skills to become a great for Australia.
Starc, on the other hand, seems like to be Johnson 2.0 - too many wayward deliveries to pose a consistent threat. Early days, though.
Yah agree. Pattinson was a bit loose (and a bit unlucky) on the first morning, but seemed to tighten up since then. Starc seems just loose all the time, he'll be better in a couple of years. I think he'd get savaged vs India.