*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[Cabinet96]

He only bowled a handful of overs though didn't he? During the slog at Edgbaston? He got a couple of 5 wicket hauls against Pakistan the year later in England though.

I think even if Watson does play as a specialist batsman, he could surely cover a few overs if Harris breaks down?

 

[howardj]

An early draft squad.

Warner, Cowan, Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Usman, Rogers

Wade, Haddin

Pattinson, Siddle, Starc, Harris, Johnson, Henriques, Lyon

We have alot of openers but that doesn't mean alot of options. Can't really move Hughes there if one of the openers fail as we want him at 3. And Watson's no monty to stay in the team anyway. Hence Rogers. I've come around to LHC's way of thinking. His 50 ave trumps worries over his 35 years. Plus he's made 3 fc tons this year in a difficult season for batting. I'd like to pick Cosgrove but; you know - skinfolds. Smith's good work in India gets him a no.6 spot.

Keepers are a given. Hopefully the incident in India will convince the selectors to pick 2 this time.

Harris just bowled 40 overs in 1st inns of the shield final so his comeback is going nicely. I don't expect he'll aim up for every match but if we use him like a grenade and lob him into a few tests he could unsettle England. Henriques for Hilf who has too many ordinary moments in tests for mine. However he's close to selection all the same. I've assumed Bird wont be fit.

Only one spinner - Lyon. If they aren't picking SOK, for whatever reason, then I wouldn't bother with a 2nd spinner.

Not a bad squad mate.

I'd probably have S'OK in there somewhere, and I think Hilf and Bird would be better value than Johnson.

I also think the selectors are likely to go with a Faulkner type, instead of Henriques

Paine also a smokey

 

[howardj]

Please bring Harris, he'll break down during the 2nd Test.

no different to half our other quicks

 

[Cabinet96]

Pattinson, Hilf and Bollinger have broken down during games just as many times actually. Still if you'd wage on anyone doing it, it would be Harris.

 

[NUFAN]

He only bowled a handful of overs though didn't he? During the slog at Edgbaston? He got a couple of 5 wicket hauls against Pakistan the year later in England though.

I think even if Watson does play as a specialist batsman, he could surely cover a few overs if Harris breaks down?

Yeah he only bowled a few overs as he was pedestrian. I know he did well against Pakistan too, but they are a different sort of team. Harris wouldn't make my First Test team unless he is on fire in the warm up games.

I really think Australia's biggest problem at the moment is actually what Social or Howardj has been saying for a while - we are getting too funky.

I just want us to pick our 6 best batsman, best keeper who is reasonable with the bat (doesn't have to be the best bat) our 3 best quicks and the last spot goes to Lyon unless its a complete fast bowlers pitch.

If we lose, we lose but when we lose picking unusual XI's with bits and pieces cricketers its harder to take.

 

[adub]

Watson is a bits and pieces player like Henriques or Maxwell. Except when he can't bowl, then he's just pieces. If he is bowling (and I mean bowling 10-12 overs per day well) then sure he stays in the side (at 6 for mine - Rogers is a must add), but if not don't even bother with the airfare. Smith can hold his place. I don't think Henriques or Maxwell has done enough to deserve a tour. If that means we play with 4 bowlers (because I don't count Smith as a bowler either) then so be it. (Of course we could play Starc as an all rounder. He's putting most of the batsmen to shame)

Harris is always an injury risk, but used smartly and maybe rotated out for a rest after two tests he could win us a test or two. Him and Pattinson are really the only two bowlers I'd have faith in making a mess of the English top order with any regularity. More than worth the risk. Hopefully Bird is recovered and Siddle is there also to get through the donkey work.

Lyon's 9-fer doesn't really change anything for me anymore than Krejza's 12-fer back in the day makes him a test candidate. Clarke took 6-9 on an Indian dust bowl - doesn't make him Derek Underwood. At this time our spinner isn't really expected to win lots of games, but they do need make a regular contribution, even if that is only knocking over 10/11 cheaply or drying up the runs whilst the quicks get a breather. Lyon hasn't even been doing that consistently enough. SOK is the most likely candidate to make these sorts of useful contributions most often so he should be in the Test side. Lyon of course would tour as well. Maybe the Poms will produce a few dusty pitches to bring Swan and Monty into the action. No problem at all playing both our spinners in the same situation. But Lyon has not done enough to demand his spot and O'Keefe has more than done enough to deserve at least a go.

 

[benchmark00]

I agree with you as long as he doesn't pull up injured half way through a game and I really, really don't want the selectors to play our keeper at 6 and bring in an extra bowling option who is really just a bits and pieces player like a Maxwell or Henriques just in case this sort of thing happens. I know it could happen to anyone, but Harris is definitely more likely.

From the squad that toured India - Henriques, Maxwell, Wade, Doherty and Johnson have no place in my 17 man squad.

I'd agree with this.

 

[Jono]

Bench, a definite no to Henriques because:

a) you don't think he should have ever been selected to India;
b) you don't like what he did in India; or
c) you like what he did in India but he's not suited to England conditions

?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Bench, a definite no to Henriques because:

a) you don't think he should have ever been selected to India;
b) you don't like what he did in India; or
c) you like what he did in India but he's not suited to England conditions

?

His batting tapered off and his bowling never arrived. The latter would be much better in English conditions, mind.

 

[Cabinet96]

Bench, a definite no to Henriques because:

a) you don't think he should have ever been selected to India;
b) you don't like what he did in India; or
c) you like what he did in India but he's not suited to England conditions

?

I wouldn't pick him (at least in the strongest XI) and it's not for any of those reasons. I don't feel he has the capabilities to construct big innings or take big wicket hauls, which means he doesn't contribute enough with either of bat or ball. His selection to me would just stink of chucking an all-rounder in for the sake of it, even if he's not the best option in either discipline.

 

[benchmark00]

Actually upon reflection, I wouldn't be horribly against him being in the squad, just to cover all bases if nothing else.

Henriques' tour to India was nothing short of a success if you ask me. Yeah he didn't perform across the whole series, but it was his first series, first time playing long form cricket in India and his stocks rose (a sneak peak of an upcoming thread I have in store) as a result.

However, like n00fers n00fan said, I want Australia to have a make up of 6 best batsmen + 4 best bowlers + wicket keeper at 7. MH isn't in that framework at the moment.

His Indian tour will be nothing but good for him in the long term, and on a similar tact I wouldn't be strictly against him touring England but he wouldn't be in my XI for any of the matches (exceptional circumstances aside).

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Our real problem IMO is that there aren't enough batsmen in the selectorial frame to actually omit an all rounder.

See:

1. Warner
2. Cowan
3. Hughes
4. Smith
5. Clarke
6. Twatto/Henriques/Maxwell/Khawaja
7. Wade
8. Pattinson
9. Siddle
10. Harris
11. Lyon

Playing Khawaja is quite literally the only realistic option to play a traditional 6-1-4 lineup, and Arthur will be anxious to avoid that scenario.

 

[Jono]

Henriques' tour to India was nothing short of a success if you ask me.

See that is the reason I asked.

If you were against Henriques getting a test place in the first place, I think it'd be fair enough to also not want him to go to England, because you didn't feel he should have been selected, regardless of his encouraging performance.

But I feel if you wanted him to go to India, there is no reason now that he should not go to England. He did not look out of place in the Australian test team, and his bowling will be even more handy in England. Although he may not have to bowl as many overs.

 

[Pothas]

Watson fits into a traditional line-up surley? If he should actually be selected or not another matter.

 

[howardj]

My team for 1st Ashes Test

Watson
Warner
Hughes
Clarke
Usman
Smith
Paine
S'OK
Siddle
Pattinson
Harris

 

[howardj]

Maybe even Clarke at 3, Hughes to open, and Warner to drop down

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Watson fits into a traditional line-up surley? If he should actually be selected or not another matter.

Far as I care, he can mark out his run up or he can hitchhike to Nottingham. His batting form isn't good enough as a specialist no matter no many press conferences he holds.

 

[howardj]

In contrast to Cowan?

 

[benchmark00]

Henriques' tour to India was nothing short of a success if you ask me./QUOTE]
See that is the reason I asked.

If you were against Henriques getting a test place in the first place, I think it'd be fair enough to also not want him to go to England, because you didn't feel he should have been selected, regardless of his encouraging performance.

But I feel if you wanted him to go to India, there is no reason now that he should not go to England. He did not look out of place in the Australian test team, and his bowling will be even more handy in England. Although he may not have to bowl as many overs.

Nope.

I didn't want Henriques to be in the starting XI in India. Smith should have played ahead of him out of the squad picked

Henriques should only play if they need to accommodate two spin bowlers, which unless there is a rank rank turner (exceptional circumstances) we don't have two spin bowlers worthy of selection in the same XI.

The fact that Henriques debuted despite Australia only going in with one recognised spin bowler was a tactical error, but they got away with it because Moises batted out of his skin.

 

[benchmark00]

And I will say in addition to that, if he had played this season Andrew McDonald would be a more suited player for the all rounder spot, as he is a more accomplished batsman at the moment, and although Moises is probably the better bowler, the role should be one of a batting all rounder.