*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Ish. He was bowling too short and you wouldn't have expected him to pose much of a threat at all to the South African batting lineup the way he was bowling. But an average of 50-odd is probably a tad OTT.

Massive improvement in England though.

Nothing to do with Duke balls I suppose.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by Briony

It's only the Windies.

That's what the England players said, on the start of their tour of the Caribbean....

That said, I would be very surprised if the WI manage to avoid losing this series. But the longer this ODI series with India goes on, and every time an Aussie player pulls up injured, I get a little more hopeful.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Briony

It's only the Windies.

That's what we (myself included) said when we went there and they put up a great fight. Shouldn't be underestimated.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Well you kinda have to balance that against the fact that the most successful bowlers in the West Indies these days are almost invariably spinners. Gavin Tonge was actually the only quick in the top eleven wicket takers in the West Indies' FC cricket last season.

Yes I fully appreciate that, but while we are balancing things out, you also have to account for the fact that Australia's batsmen will play average/good first class spinners a heck of a lot better than your standard West Indies first-class player, especially on Australian tracks.

In all fairness I have probably not seen enough of the batch of WI spinners going around to make a wholly accurate judgement, I have been fairly impressed by what I have seen of Nikita Miller, but it is a tall ask for any of those to either threaten the Aussie line-up or even to contain.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Nothing to do with Duke balls I suppose.

It's obviously a possibility- he seemed to have developed some variation and was bowling a fuller length, though. I suspect that once he was in the CA camp he just made those little improvements he needed to be a quality swing bowler.

It's debateable whether he'll be good in Oz- his FC record suggest he's not exactly useless. I'd be a bit disappointed were he not even given the chance after carrying the attack for most of the Ashes.

Originally Posted by Woodster

Yes I fully appreciate that, but while we are balancing things out, you also have to account for the fact that Australia's batsmen will play average/good first class spinners a heck of a lot better than your standard West Indies first-class player, especially on Australian tracks.

Well yeah- but they'll also play West Indian fast bowlers a hell of a lot better than those they've been bowling to at home, and they can't even buy a wicket in the West Indian FC system so you have to wonder what hope they have in Australia.

Whoever they pick, the prospects are going to be bleak. I can't comment on who they should go for because I haven't seen enough of the candidates bowl. But I do think there's a clear bias towards fast bowling even when spinners are having all the success. Andy Roberts was a selector not long ago sure.

[Uppercut]

It annoys me how people talk about Hilfenhaus as though he's some kind of dibbly-dobbly swing bowler. He regularly clocks 145 Ks, he's just got Virender Sehwag out with a bouncer ffs.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Well yeah- but they'll also play West Indian fast bowlers a hell of a lot better than those they've been bowling to at home, and they can't even buy a wicket in the West Indian FC system so you have to wonder what hope they have in Australia.

Whoever they pick, the prospects are going to be bleak. I can't comment on who they should go for because I haven't seen enough of the candidates bowl. But I do think there's a clear bias towards fast bowling even when spinners are having all the success. Andy Roberts was a selector not long ago sure.

Yes they will play the quicks better, you're right, but I also think the WI first-class batsmen play the quicks better than the spinners on the WI tracks. I think the type of wickets, and a general weakness against spin has dictated the way the first-class stats have turned out this season. For example I do anticipate a player such as Roach, or Rampaul to fair better than the majority of spinners on the list, in Australia.

Yes I think regardless of who is selected, they're going to have a very tough time out there. Bias- maybe, I just think they recognise that while these spinners have much success at home, they do not have the skills to succeed at this stage, at the highest level.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Woodster

Yes they will play the quicks better, you're right, but I also think the WI first-class batsmen play the quicks better than the spinners on the WI tracks. I think the type of wickets, and a general weakness against spin has dictated the way the first-class stats have turned out this season. For example I do anticipate a player such as Roach, or Rampaul to fair better than the majority of spinners on the list, in Australia.

Yes I think regardless of who is selected, they're going to have a very tough time out there. Bias- maybe, I just think they recognise that while these spinners have much success at home, they do not have the skills to succeed at this stage, at the highest level.

I couldn't possibly make such a call having never seen most of them play. Nikita Miller is only one of many, so having seen a little bit of him tells us nothing.

If they're going horses-for-courses that's fine, but one of the matches is at Adelaide, so you'd think they'd at least have an extra spinner in the squad for consideration when that game rolls around.

[Matt79]

@ Uppercut - I do think Hilfy should be in the team, ahead of Lee. I just don't agree that he should be ahead of Siddle or, lord help us, Johnson at this stage.

For me, pending Lee showing some form with the red ball, and/or an injury occuring, I'd go with the attack we had for most of the Ashes: Johnson, Hauritz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, and I guess Watson. Bollinger and Lee as the two stand bys.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Matt79

@ Uppercut - I do think he should be in the team, ahead of Lee. For me, pending Lee showing some form with the red ball, and/or an injury occuring, I'd go with the attack we had for most of the Ashes: Johnson, Hauritz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, and I guess Watson. Bollinger and Lee as the two stand bys.

Personally I don't think Lee should have to prove that he can bowl well with a red ball. 300 wickets tell us he can. If he's physically fit, as should be obvious from his LO bowling in the run-up to the tests, I'd pick him.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Personally I don't think Lee should have to prove that he can bowl well with a red ball. 300 wickets tell us he can. If he's physically fit, as should be obvious from his LO bowling in the run-up to the tests, I'd pick him.

Spot on. Along with a 4-man pace attack.

[Uppercut]

*shrugs*

Everyone will point to the Oval test to say that Australia should always go in with a spinner, but they'd be forgetting that a four-pronged pace attack was key in their only victory of the series. I'd say horses for courses is the way to go, but I don't really have faith in their ability to read pitches.

I don't rightly know.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

*shrugs*

Everyone will point to the Oval test to say that Australia should always go in with a spinner, but they'd be forgetting that a four-pronged pace attack was key in their only victory of the series. I'd say horses for courses is the way to go, but I don't really have faith in their ability to read pitches.

I don't rightly know.

Yea Hauritz or Krejza really only should play if the conditions definately assit spin i.e SCG or a sub-continent tour & depending on strenght of the opposition.

Plus playing them as part of 4-man attack is too risky, if one of Hauritz/Krejza is to play consistently it has to be part of a 5-man attack - with the assurance that Watson will be able to 15-20 overs an innings without breaking down. Which ATM clearly isn't the case.

Plus the effect of Haurtiz not playing at the Oval has been a bit overaplayed. AUS lost that game MAINLY because of that idiotic batting performance in their first innings.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Matt79

sorry, that's outlandish. Johnson was the ICC cricketer of the year last year and dominated in Oz last year. He had a form slump in the Ashes but was clearly turning it around by the end of the series.

Agree he and Siddle have improvement still to accomplish, but they were two of the better performed quicks in the world last year and Siddle is visibly improving with each series under his belt. You want to drop them because they're inexperienced? As in don't ever bring in anyone new? How will they ever stop being too inexperienced if they can't get more games under their belt? If you're answer is that they go back to FC, that's a joke - the las thing they need is to go back to an environment where without bowling at their best they can dominate - they'll learn more playing better opponents. And this summer is a good time to let our future develop. It's debateable whether Clark is over the hill now, but in another six months he definitely will be getting close. What's the point of giving he and Lee a testimonial season against relatively weaker opposition and then being in the same boat in March.

Would love to know who the better options than Johnson, on top of Lee and Clark, that you reckon are out there.

Agree with every word.

Lee over Johson or Siddle is outrageous.

No point in giving Lee an undeserved Test farewell lap, where he'd break down anyway.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Personally I don't think Lee should have to prove that he can bowl well with a red ball. 300 wickets tell us he can. .

...at a plus 30 average, and an average of 47 last summer.

Plus he's an injury prone almost 34 year old.

What's the point recalling someone like that up against West Indies, Pakistan and NZ this Summer?