Australia's idiotic selection. Just expecting the Oval's curators to produce a pitch that would end in a draw was ignorant. Why no one in the Australian camp couldnt read that the pitch was modified to ensure a result is bizarre. North's 4 wickets in the 2nd innings just shows you what a massive blunder it was to not select Hauritz.
Whats the old saying? Its harder to get dropped from the Australian side than to get in. Stuart Clark finished with 4 wickets @ 44 from 2 tests. I find it hard that neither Lee or Haurtiz could have done better than that.
When it comes to cricket every country has its hang-ups and bizarre philosophies. The way people in Australia hang on to old ideas is puzzling. Maybe because cricket is still largely an anglo-saxon sport here and we've inherited England's stubbornness when it comes to cricket. Then again people of limited intelligence will always hold onto their prejudices and beliefs without reason or re-evaluating them.
The selectors got it right by dropping Hughes for Watson, even though Watson is not the long term solution. Why couldnt get it right for Clark I dont know. He was smashed in England's 2nd innings in Leeds and then was smashed again in the tour match between the 4th and 5th tests.
I think people are being unduly unfair on Johson. He finished the series with much better figures than Flinoff, Swann and Anderson and only 2 runs per wicket higher than Broad but 2 more wickets.
I thought it was a bold decision by England to drop Onions for the 5th test. Obviously the English read the pitch better and realised that Onions/Clark's style of bowling would have little impact at the Oval.
Most disappointing thing besides Australia's selection policy was North only being able to score runs when Australia was on top. His 2nd innings score of 96 at Edgbaston was when the game was already headed for a draw.
Last edited by slippyslip; 23-08-2009 at 03:23 PM.