Clarke called up

[Great Birtannia]

Im sure they already know who will be playing, they just don't want to tell the media or England.

England would have planned for them all anyway, hell they've just spent the last fortnight facing Tait and Clark, bowling to Michael Clarke and they had a good sighter of Watson and Johnson at the Champions Trophy. The way Langer was talking to the media I don't think the players know who will playing.

 

[Burgey]

It wasn't the dismissal, it was the way he went about it. He was on 92 or something, had plenty of time, but Harmison (IIRC) was bowling a good line and he hadn't scored many for a while. Vaughan set a perfect off-side field and instead of toughing it out when finding it hard to score, he just kept trying to slash it out of the freaking ground. Got what he deserved when dismissed.

That situation completely sums him up as a player for mine, and is the reason his FC (and test) average is so low comparitively to players who don't have his natural talent. He has absolutely no ticker, no will to really get in and grind one out for the team. Lacking in guts and temperament, and until he sorts that out, he will never average above 40 again.

Hoggard was bowling, not Harmison.

Yeah it appeared he threw it away, but look at the state of the game. Australia were in command and were pressing hard for runs. The Poms had begun bowling 1.5 to 2 feet outside off with 7 or 8 men there to dry it up.

I think his shot was as much an expression at the negativity of the tactics being used as it was a sign of intemperance. in the wash up it's fortunate they hurried it along because iirc it rained on what would have been day 5.

Having said all that, he is impetuous, but he looks like he's playing a fair bit straighter than he was before he was dropped. Easy to forget he's only 24 or 25 and still has a lot to learn.

 

[chaminda_00]

England would have planned for them all anyway, hell they've just spent the last fortnight facing Tait and Clark, bowling to Michael Clarke and they had a good sighter of Watson and Johnson at the Champions Trophy. The way Langer was talking to the media I don't think the players know who will playing.

Its easier to plan for 2 players then five players. I think Langer media interview just shows that they don't want the media to know who is playing, keep the hype going to the first day, to take it away from Thorpe.

 

[Mister Wright]

Watson's officially out. Clarke is his replacement, so Australia won't be playing 5 bowlers.

 

[Josh]

Don't know whether I'd rather Watson or Clarke, to be honest.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Clarke makes runs it'll be pretty tough for them to drop him for Watson, which will also hurt MacGill's chances of appearing much in this series, as they probably won't want to pick him with just the two seamers, unless Australia is in real trouble.

The absence of Watson also severely hurts Tait and Johnson's chances of making the side, so I think we'll see Clark for at least a couple of tests.

 

[andyc]

Gah, gutted, was really hoping for Watto to make it in. As Sean mentioned, if Clarke does make runs, will he keep his place? IMO, the selectors should just treat Clarke as a replacement for an injured player, and once Watson's back to full health, which will hopefully be by the next test, he'd just slot back in. Doubt it'll happen though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gah, gutted, was really hoping for Watto to make it in. As Sean mentioned, if Clarke does make runs, will he keep his place? IMO, the selectors should just treat Clarke as a replacement for an injured player, and once Watson's back to full health, which will hopefully be by the next test, he'd just slot back in. Doubt it'll happen though.

I like Watson as much as anyone, but you couldn't drop a player like Clarke if he made a century or something. If anyone was going to get dumped and Clarke was making big runs it'd probably have to be Martyn.

 

[Johnners]

I like Watson as much as anyone, but you couldn't drop a player like Clarke if he made a century or something. If anyone was going to get dumped and Clarke was making big runs it'd probably have to be Martyn.

Agreed, i was just thinking about this before. If Clarke does indeed score runs, and i reckon he will do so in the 1st test, it puts instant pressure on Langer & Martyn to perform at least adequatly. Martyn because his place is anything but secure in the Middle order, and Langer because despite the fact that he deserves better, his place IS under scrutiny, and there is the possibility that Hussey could move up to open, thus leaving room for Watson to come in.

That being said though, it wouldn't at all suprise me if they treat him as a substitute for an injured player as Cameron said, and swap him back out for Watson in the second test.

 

[howardj]

Watson will come straight back in when he is fit. Australia have gone out of their way to pick an allrounder for EVERY Test match since the Oval. It's part of their blueprint to have another bowling option, while ever old man McGrath and Warne are in the same side. They're not going to let the balance of their side (or what they want the balance of their side to be like) be upset (by leaving Watson out) just because Michael Clarke makes a score. Plus, MacGill is a near certainty to play in Adelaide and Perth, which will make Watson's re-selection even more certain.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Watson will come straight back in when he is fit. Australia have gone out of their way to pick an allrounder for EVERY Test match since the Oval. It's part of their blueprint to have another bowling option, while ever old man McGrath and Warne are in the same side. They're not going to let the balance of their side (or what they want the balance of their side to be like) be upset (by leaving Watson out) just because Michael Clarke makes a score. Plus, MacGill is a near certainty to play in Adelaide and Perth, which will make Watson's re-selection even more certain.

MacGill isn't fit or bowling at the moment, so I don't think he's a guarantee to play in Adelaide, and the only test he's an absolute certainty for is Sydney. Whether or not MacGill plays in Adelaide depends on the performance of Clark (or whichever third quick they pick), as well as his fitness. Also, I don't think if Clarke comes out and scores a century they will drop him for the next game. I agree that they may very well drop someone, but it won't be Clarke. They're simply too invested in him becoming a strong, regular member of the team to drop him after he makes big runs. If Clarke makes a big score and Martyn doesn't, Watson will come in for Martyn.

 

[howardj]

Personally, I don't think Australia should go down the track of casting around for a third paceman in preference to MacGill, like they did in 2005, on wickets that are guaranteed to take spin. It's a losing formula.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally, I don't think Australia should go down the track of casting around for a third paceman in preference to MacGill, like they did in 2005, on wickets that are guaranteed to take spin. It's a losing formula.

Agreed, but it's not casting around if Clark bowls well. Say for instance Clark takes 5 or 6 on Thursday and sets up a win, and MacGill hasn't played a game since coming back from his broken nose before the Adelaide test. I don't think dropping Clark for MacGill under those circumstances would be a particularly great move, unless the pitch was shaping up to be a real turner or something.

If Clark is merely servicable, then by all means pick MacGill in Adelaide. I don't think he should be pencilled in yet though, I'd really like to see him take a few for NSW first.

 

[garypratt]

Bloody brilliant news for England if Michael Clarke plays. He's got lovely highlights in his hair but that's about it. Means there will be massive pressure on just four bowlers as well, with two of them approaching middle age.

 

[howardj]

Agreed, but it's not casting around if Clark bowls well. Say for instance Clark takes 5 or 6 on Thursday and sets up a win, and MacGill hasn't played a game since coming back from his broken nose before the Adelaide test. I don't think dropping Clark for MacGill under those circumstances would be a particularly great move, unless the pitch was shaping up to be a real turner or something.

If Clark is merely servicable, then by all means pick MacGill in Adelaide. I don't think he should be pencilled in yet though, I'd really like to see him take a few for NSW first.

Fair enough.

From all reports though, the Adelaide wicket has been pretty docile this year.

 

[Mister Wright]

Agreed, but it's not casting around if Clark bowls well. Say for instance Clark takes 5 or 6 on Thursday and sets up a win, and MacGill hasn't played a game since coming back from his broken nose before the Adelaide test. I don't think dropping Clark for MacGill under those circumstances would be a particularly great move, unless the pitch was shaping up to be a real turner or something.

If Clark is merely servicable, then by all means pick MacGill in Adelaide. I don't think he should be pencilled in yet though, I'd really like to see him take a few for NSW first.

MacGill's a proven test match pefromer, don't know why he has to 'take a few for NSW' to get himself in the test side. His injury isn't shoulder nor ankle/foot related, so don't think he won't be bowling in the nets or whatever. He is our 3rd or 4th best bowler in the country (which ever way you argue) and he should always be picked IMO. Therefore, it would be a crime not to pick him on a pitch that is going to offer turn.

 

[chaminda_00]

IMO if MacGill doesn't play in 3 out of 5 Tests, i wouldn't be surprised if Australia don't win back the Ashes. Clark, Tait and Johnson are all good bowlers, but MacGill is a class above, i can see him having more impact on this series then Brett Lee.

 

[Mister Wright]

IMO if MacGill doesn't play in 3 out of 5 Tests, i wouldn't be surprised if Australia don't win back the Ashes. Clark, Tait and Johnson are all good bowlers, but MacGill is a class above, i can see him having more impact on this series then Brett Lee.

So you're of the 3rd best bowler opinion like me?

 

[chaminda_00]

So you're of the 3rd best bowler opinion like me?

Nah Lee should be the 3rd bowler picked, but i can just see Strauss, KP and Fintoff dominating Lee, more then MacGill.

 

[social]

Bloody brilliant news for England if Michael Clarke plays. He's got lovely highlights in his hair but that's about it. Means there will be massive pressure on just four bowlers as well, with two of them approaching middle age.

Totally agree - massive blow to Australia

Watson is not only good enough to be the fifth bowler (we dont have anyone that can even roll their arm over serviceably without him) but he's also a better bat than Clarke who hasnt done a thing to justify a recall.

To compound matters, it's unlikely that the selectors will risk Johnson because there's no backup and will revert to Clark

In summary, Watson's injury weakens 2 bowling positions and a batting position

England should start favourites for mine