Noffke is injured and out of the T20 with the same back problem that's had him miss a couple of matches this season. I remember reading somewhere it's been troubling him on and off for a year or two, so I wonder if that coupled with his age is something that is going against his selection.
Yeah I agree, he did his best he possibly could, and I want him to have this series. Symonds can just waltz back into the side, and I don't like it. He hasn't done anything notable with the bat so far this season for the Bulls, whilst Watson has been doing a solid job for Australia.
Vettori is easily good enough to be a Test match number 7, might even make it to being a number 6. Mills is a bit meh, Southee could hold 9 though and O'Brien is fine at 10.
All of Vettori's batting success has come at number 8 (bar the odd time he's done well as a night watchman), and while he's got a great record over the last few years, I'd never want to push him any higher. Mills is not a number 8, plain and simple. Southee may one day have the potential to bat 9 or even higher. Right now he's a slogger with 0 technique he every now and then has an on day when his natural talent pays off. The rest of the time he's rubbish. O'Brien averages 4 in test cricket and I'd imagine is the only player in the history of the sport to have been out scored by Chris Martin. And Martin is Martin.
I think because there have been better longer term performers than Siddle who are more deserving.
As I said before, it's basically a third eleven as far as the bowling goes. If you count our internationals, anyway.Agree with Bahnz here. Tend to think Elliott will come in for the 1st Test to sure up the batting, probably in place of Southee I'm guessing.
Am shocked that a NSW second eleven could cause us this much damage.
It's not hatred, he's obviously got potential, but there are at least 2 bowlers who are clearly better than him. To have him in the 13 whilst Noffke & Bollinger are around and bowling down the house it's quite ridiculous really.
Still no reason to shift him from where he's been so succesful in the past, nor does it disguise the fact that the rest of our lower order are going to be hopelessly overwhelmed where they're batting at the moment. And Vettori needs to focus on his bowling. He's the only spinner in the country even remotely close to international class.
While Oram is away I'd much rather Vettori cover him than Elliot. And hey
But...its not like its a choice between Vettori and Elliot. You play both, and the batting is stronger. Again, I'd rather we had a specialist batsman than Elliot, but he's a better batting option than anyone else in the squad, and our batting is what's weakest.While Oram is away I'd much rather Vettori cover him than Elliot. And hey
I agree about Franklin. For all the faults of our genuine batsmen, we used to have unquestionably the best lower order in the world. Now, with O'Brien, Southee and Martin in the team, you wouldn't bank on the last 3 ever putting together more than 20 between them. Which is why I don't think we can carry all three. And I also don't think another right arm medium pacer is going to help our bowling that much. If it was something a little more varied, like a lefty or pace bowler then I'd be tempted. But I just don't see too much good coming out of having 4 right arm medium pacers, rather than 3.
As I said before, it's basically a third eleven as far as the bowling goes. If you count our internationals, anyway.
First XI attack - Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Casson
Second XI - Bracken, Cameron, ****ley, Hauritz
Third XI - Hazelwood, half-fit Henriques, Lambert, Smith
Would probably swap Bracken and Casson in reality but I wanted to keep the balance the same and it's irrelevant in the context anyway. Thought I'd qualify this in case Nath read it though: Bracken >>>>>>>> Casson.
And I don't see how Elliott is going to make any difference. Would still prefer the extra quick.
Casson didn't bowl, though - we used Smith instead.
