I wonder if every one else had been fit wether he'd have stuck to his original plan - but I think he had to do this. Its true to say they would win first two games without him, but6 if he'd have to come in against SA with no matches for over a month, he might not have made an instant impact. Does anyone think Haddin is a wasted place now - that there might be better specialist batsmen in Australia that Haddin has kept out - or would they have picked him even if Gilchrist had been avaliable for all matches at the time they picked the squad and played him as a batsman if they had injuries?