*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Oscillatingmind]

Its good to see their sticking with the same line-up that lost the ashes

 

[aussie]

Anyone think they'll play 4 quicks?

Don't reckon so personally.

Have been fasting & praying that they will since the Oval test finshed.

 

[inbox24]

Stuart Clark?

 

[shivfan]

Gayle is first story on Cricinfo for me, Lords is waay down the list. But hey, don't let sour grapes spoil a decent whine.

I'm happy for you, then....

I don't see why it's sour grapes to complain that in England a non-story about Lords NOT changing their name shouldn't get precedence over Gayle going home. Because that Lords story bumped the Gayle story off the front page here. Here in England, the Michael Clarke case did get far more coverage.

But hey, that's the reality with cricinfo! Stories on India, England and Australia get far more coverage, except when it comes to taking pot-shots at Gayle and WICB incompetence.

 

[Craig]

I guess somebody had to be made the scapegoat for the The Oval loss, and genius idea of playing four quicks and no spinner, and it had to be Stuart Clark.

I'm not sure about Siddle, obviously a good bowler, but man he can go for a lot of runs at times.

 

[four_or_six]

I'm happy for you, then....

I don't see why it's sour grapes to complain that in England a non-story about Lords NOT changing their name shouldn't get precedence over Gayle going home. Because that Lords story bumped the Gayle story off the front page here. Here in England, the Michael Clarke case did get far more coverage.

But hey, that's the reality with cricinfo! Stories on India, England and Australia get far more coverage, except when it comes to taking pot-shots at Gayle and WICB incompetence.

It's not just a story about the name of Lords, it's about a suggested £400 million pound investment in the ground and what that may entail. I expect that if Gayle actually misses a test match it will be bigger news. As it is, it's a story about a player missing a tour match in a series that I would imagine is of little interest to the majority of cricket fans in this country. A player, in fact, that last time we played tests against him basically said they were pointless anyway! Hardly major news at this time.

 

[Matt79]

Its good to see their sticking with the same line-up that lost the ashes

A few people have made this observation, but I think it's pretty meaningless unless you're actually saying that there are better alternatives who should have been selected instead.

Maybe the team that went to the Ashes was our best team and England were simply better over the course of the series?

 

[Matt79]

I'm happy for you, then....

I don't see why it's sour grapes to complain that in England a non-story about Lords NOT changing their name shouldn't get precedence over Gayle going home. Because that Lords story bumped the Gayle story off the front page here. Here in England, the Michael Clarke case did get far more coverage.

But hey, that's the reality with cricinfo! Stories on India, England and Australia get far more coverage, except when it comes to taking pot-shots at Gayle and WICB incompetence.

Perils of not being a major cricket nation.

 

[Uppercut]

Perils of not being a major cricket nation.

Translation: perils of being crap.

 

[Matt79]

Was trying to sugar coat it yo...

 

[grecian]

Been a bit of discussion on him in the AD Season Thread. He's sharp enough for an 18 year-old, hustles in like his dad, swings it away a touch on a length, bowls a decent yorker.

He's basically a slower clone of his Dad. If he adds 5Km/h and develops an off-cutter, he will BE his Dad.

Reckon Billy was less accurate at 18-20 but he was quicker than Ali. TBH, as long as he keeps that beautiful shape away from the bat happening, reckon he'll go well.

Thanks, will be interested to see how is career will pan out

 

[social]

A few people have made this observation, but I think it's pretty meaningless unless you're actually saying that there are better alternatives who should have been selected instead.

Maybe the team that went to the Ashes was our best team and England were simply better over the course of the series?

Given that Watson is NSW's 4th choice opener, I'd say it was a fair assumption

 

[Matt79]

Because there's been a problem with the performances he's provided an an opener? Given he played well in the Ashes saying you have a problem with his selection because we lost the Ashes makes no sense. If you want to say you think he should be dropped for another reason, say that.

I disagree btw regarding the reason you gave. That's essentially saying you don't want an allrounder because there are specialists available. Especially given NSW's "third" choice opener was also selected throughout the series and one of the first pick openers was selected but then dropped.

Hussey would be the one I'd suggest who could be sensibly replaced, but even he got a ton in his last test, and has been playing well in ODIs. But if he went, I'd be moving Watson to his spot, not thinking about dropping him as well.

 

[howardj]

The selectors, in my learned opinion, were as weak as piss in retaining Hussey. It is in Australia's interests for Watson to be bowling 10 overs per day. Whilst he is opening, it limits the extent to which Ponting will employ his bowling. The hard and correct decision would have been to terminate Hussey's career (the guy is 34 and has had a horror 18 months) and slide Watson down the order, and thereby give the team more flexibility. However, the selectors elected to dog it.

 

[aussie]

The selectors, in my learned opinion, were as weak as piss in retaining Hussey. It is in Australia's interests for Watson to be bowling 10 overs per day. Whilst he is opening, it limits the extent to which Ponting will employ his bowling. The hard and correct decision would have been to terminate Hussey's career (the guy is 34 and has had a horror 18 months) and slide Watson down the order, and thereby give the team more flexibility. However, the selectors elected to dog it.

By this same reasoning, should Hayden have been dropped after his Oval hundred in 05?. Surely not - Hussey deserved to retain his place for now.

Plus Watson's bowling wont be needed if 4 semaers are picked.

The selectors where right to show a bit of consistency with selection. Dropping Hussey & calling up Hughes wouldn't have been fair ATS.

 

[howardj]

By this same reasoning, should Hayden have been dropped after his Oval hundred in 05?. Surely not - Hussey deserved to retain his place for now.

Plus Watson's bowling wont be needed if 4 semaers are picked.

The selectors where right to show a bit of consistency with selection. Dropping Hussey & calling up Hughes wouldn't have been fair ATS.

Not the same reasoning at all mate.

I'm saying that we need a fourth pace option and therefore Watson should slide down the order, and Hussey should make way.

That has no comparisons to Hayden's situation at all.

If losing 3 out of the last four Test series, and failing througout that period (as the 34 year old Hussey did) is not enough to get you dropped, what is?

It was a weak decision to retain him. His failings over the last 18 months have really hurt AUstralia.

 

[aussie]

Not the same reasoning at all mate.

I'm saying that we need a fourth pace option and therefore Watson should slide down the order, and Hussey should make way.

That has no comparisons to Hayden's situation at all.

If losing 3 out of the last four Test series, and failing througout that period (as the 34 year old Hussey did) is not enough to get you dropped, what is?

It was a weak decision to retain him. His failings over the last 18 months have really hurt AUstralia.

I would have to disagree their was a DIRECT link to AUS losing in IND, home to SA & the Ashes - & Hussey's poor run with the bat.

AUS lost in IND because of lack of proper bowling attack & poor selections. Hussey was batting well in IND.

AUS lost at home to SA because of poor bowling selections again, the batting stood up - although Hussey & Hayden where not in form.

AUS lost the Ashes because of inconsistent team batting (Lord's & Oval first innings) & poor selections.

If anyone needs dropping now its the selectors.

 

[Uppercut]

Hussey and Watson were fantastically in-form during the ODI series in India. Wouldn't dream of dropping either at the moment. The team's fine.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hussey and Watson were fantastically in-form during the ODI series in India. Wouldn't dream of dropping either at the moment. The team's fine.

In fairness, Hussey has been in decent ODI nick for a while now (one of OZ's best batters, really).

It's not even the numbers which tell a story with Huss here, it's his manner of dismissal. If a bloke gets out shouldering arms once every couple of years, fair enough but twice in a series to what were pretty straight balls? It's not enough on it's own to drop the guy but it's eyebrow-raising at least, especially from a bloke who has been an opening batter for most of his career.

He gutsed out a ton in England and good on him but without it, his case for retention would have been abysmal. With it, it's 50/50 I reckon.

 

[Burgey]

In fairness, Hussey has been in decent ODI nick for a while now (one of OZ's best batters, really).

It's not even the numbers which tell a story with Huss here, it's his manner of dismissal. If a bloke gets out shouldering arms once every couple of years, fair enough but twice in a series to what were pretty straight balls? It's not enough on it's own to drop the guy but it's eyebrow-raising at least, especially from a bloke who has been an opening batter for most of his career.

He gutsed out a ton in England and good on him but without it, his case for retention would have been abysmal. With it, it's 50/50 I reckon.

Tis weird, bceause if his eyes were going that badly, you'd think he wouldn't be able to place the ball so deftly in ODIs. Gotta be a mental thing there, rather than just some physical decline, I'd think.