-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Third Test at the WACA
- Thread starter benchmark00
- Start date
Ruckus
International Captain
Given that neither of them are particularly good anyway, and North is most likely going to be retained in the team irrespective of how he performs this match, his involvement in the team might as well be put to better use by allowing another batsmen to come in. Don't think you could really argue that Hauritz's spin would provide any advantage over North's spin + his batting + another batsmen in the team.
Ruckus
International Captain
I didn't even see your post??? I thought it was a good idea myself. "Plain stupid" is your opinion, and I disagree. Seeing as though we don't have an exceptional specialist spinner, their role in the team is not that important. North can cover the 'lesser' aspects of spin bowling. The attack of this team at this stage will always be dependant on our quicks, and shouldn't rely on a spinner.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It might be an idea, but not a very good one.
Did we learn nothing from Cameron White's inclusion in the Australian team.
You pick 4 specialist bowlers, including one specialist spinner. That man has to be one of Hauritz or O'Keefe.
Spark
Global Moderator
Nothing more to add than this. AWTA.
God I hope not...
I think the best team Australia could pick for Perth would be -
Watson
Katich (Hughes if he's unfit)
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Hussey
Haddin
O'Keefe/Hauritz
Harris
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
I know Siddle was great in the first dig in Brisbane, but he's been pedestrian since, and I just feel that Hilf compliments Doug and Harris better and that he's got more to fall back on as a test bowler at this stage.
Ruckus
International Captain
I would be all for picking O'Keefe, because he looks promising with the ball and the bat. But I wasn't talking about him because it seems at this stage very unlikely he will even come under consideration. Furthermore, the whole premise of having North as the 'main' spinner is because it is assumed he will be retained in the team. As this test has shown, it is our batting which is the main problem atm, hence making North the main spinner allows his position to be of better value, and allows another batsmen into the middle order. Once again, you cannot possibly argue that having Hauritz as the main spinner and North as the no. 6 would be better than having North as the main spinner and an extra proper batsmen (e.g. Khawaja).
Compare the line-ups, which one do you think would be more likely to succeed:
1.
Watson
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Khawaja
North (spinner)
Haddin
Fast bowler
Fast bowler
Fast bowler
2.
Watson
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
North
Haddin
Hauritz
Fast bowler
Fast bowler
Fast bowler
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Should sucker punch them with David Warner and Watson opening the batting imo.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Australia batting for 20 overs has my full backing.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But it isn't an either-or situation. You can jettison North without making other changes you know.
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeah of course, but that isn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the likely scenario of North being retained. Frankly, if it was up to me I would probably have O'Keefe and Cameron/Copeland in the team...
DragonPunk
School Boy/Girl Captain
I wouldn't mind that, he's in form and made a lot of runs for WA this season thus far.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
How are you possibly going to take 20 wickets with line-up 1?
Line-up 2 is more likely to take 20 wickets, although it is still quite unlikely to do so.
Bowlers are doing worse than batsmen imo.
1000+ runs for 5 wickets is absolutely rubbish. Even a state team would've done better.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Australia actually need to win the ashes, so they have to win tests. They can't win if the bowlers don't take 20 wickets. I would drop north for another bowler, who can perferably bat a bit.
Since the pitches are flat, good batting performances should be around the corner.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Would play Smith + 4 seamers. I still consider Smith a batsman, maybe a batting all-rounder in one-day cricket, but is more likely to get wickets than North. (Also runs).
For fast bowling, I'd take Dougie, Siddle, Harris and Cameron.
Personally I hope Doherty plays for as long as possible. I've tried to give him the benifit of the doubt, I don't think you can judge a cricketer by one match. But I can't bring myself to consider XD as Test match standard.
For fast bowling, I'd take Dougie, Siddle, Harris and Cameron.
Personally I hope Doherty plays for as long as possible. I've tried to give him the benifit of the doubt, I don't think you can judge a cricketer by one match. But I can't bring myself to consider XD as Test match standard.