-
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*** Australia in South Africa
- Thread starter pup11
- Start date
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
No spinners? Is this true?
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Over rates. 
Too true. So no Ponting in the second Test. Will be interesting to see what their line-up is then.Over rates.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Oh dear. Looks better than I expected...
pup11
International Coach
Jeez, this is seriously dire, if North is going to be the spin option then why carry two spinners in the squad, McGain deserved his chance at this level, but this sort of treatment won't give him any confidence.
Anyways, out of the 12 man squad now, this is the XI that should play in the first test:
1.Hughes
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Hussey
5.Clarke
6.North
7.Haddin
8.Johnson
9.Siddle
10.Bollinger
11.Hilfenhaus
Don't think its worth picking McDonald ahead of a genuine bowler, and neither can both North and McDonald play in the same side atm, and at this stage, North is the more viable option, especially given the fact Aussies have decided to discard the spinners.
Though like it has been already said, my gut feel too tells me, that the Aussies are gonna play both North and McDonald and leave out Hilfenhuas, but McDonald batting at 8 is neither of much value with the bat, nor does he posses the ability to be a genuine 4th bowling option, at best he is just a steady 5th bowling option, so Aussie selectors are likely to mess it up, all over again.
Anyways, out of the 12 man squad now, this is the XI that should play in the first test:
1.Hughes
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Hussey
5.Clarke
6.North
7.Haddin
8.Johnson
9.Siddle
10.Bollinger
11.Hilfenhaus
Don't think its worth picking McDonald ahead of a genuine bowler, and neither can both North and McDonald play in the same side atm, and at this stage, North is the more viable option, especially given the fact Aussies have decided to discard the spinners.
Though like it has been already said, my gut feel too tells me, that the Aussies are gonna play both North and McDonald and leave out Hilfenhuas, but McDonald batting at 8 is neither of much value with the bat, nor does he posses the ability to be a genuine 4th bowling option, at best he is just a steady 5th bowling option, so Aussie selectors are likely to mess it up, all over again.
inbox24
International Debutant
Looks like Cameron White (Andrew McDonald) in India deja vu.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No way McDonald would play as part of the most extravagant 5 man seam attack of all time, would he?
The make up of the 12 demands North plays. If they pick McDonald and have 5 seamers, seriously the selectors must resign. Not sledging McDonald in saying that, I just mean they really can't play him given the make up of the squad, can they?
The make up of the 12 demands North plays. If they pick McDonald and have 5 seamers, seriously the selectors must resign. Not sledging McDonald in saying that, I just mean they really can't play him given the make up of the squad, can they?
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
He's no specialist either. Closer to part-timer than specialist paceman.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If the wicket's conducive to quickies, then I don't see how 3 quicks, McDonald and North is > 4 specialist quicks and North, tbh. Having said that, McDonald is no mug in conditions like that, just hte others should (emphasise should) be better than him at taking 20 wickets.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The only thinking behind these selections can be picking names out of a hat.