Originally Posted by aussie
Picking McGain as part of 4-man attack is risky because the likely 3 seamers aren't a McGrath/Gillespie/Kasper like combo in ability.
All are obviously inexperienced, along with McGain who aint nor Warne or MacGill. So picking such an attack, Australia are definately at a disadvantage to SA batsmen. Its going to another repeat of the home series, since thats not learning from the mistakes that where made with the bowling selections.
I have said it many times, but 4-seamers is the best balance for the 1st test. I'd love to see McGain start, but overall its not the best option.
If After the 1st test though, as Ponting wisely said the other day. The quicks step up like how McGrath, Reifell, Juilian stepped up in 95 & surprise the saffies, then throw McGain into the action.
I gather what you're saying, then, is that McGain's selection is, to an extent, tied to McDonald's. If they play McDonald, would you be more inclined to pick McGain?
I don't think it's an easy question for the selectors. North would appear more likely to score runs than McDonald, but McDonald more likely to take wickets than North, despite the latter's 6-for in the tour match. And I wouldn't have thought even North would consider himself a front-line spinner.
As much as I'd think North would be perhaps more likely to play medium-to-long-term at number 6 for Australia than McDonald, in this instance, wouldn't the more attacking move be to play McDonald as part of a five man attack?
It seems to me that playing a 6th specialist batsman and a four man attack in circumstances where we've struggled to knock SA over at home, let alone away, is basically telling the opposition we'd be content to draw the first test rather than have a crack.