Yeah, completely agree. Particularly for Shane Watson, who has done absolutely nothing at test level. There's a logic to playing five bowlers with Haddin at 6, albeit logic I don't agree with. I'd probably be looking at going unchanged- but if Lee is fit, he comes in for Hauritz.^^ You're mad. You'd drop North when he's scored a century last test because he was dismissed by a gem of an arm-ball from Swann in this test?
I'm sorry, what? Two opening batsmen, in-form, you shuffle them around to accommodate a bloke who's been out of the Test side for a couple of years and that's a 'stabilising' move?No. But with the number 3 spot still a problematic area for ENG. If Marcus was still available, Cook could go down the three, thus stabilizing the top order.
Call up Dave Hussey if a batsman gets injured before the 4th or 5th Tests?Lee and Watson should both be sent home if they can't play in the next tour game. WIth Clark and MacDonald both woefully underdone also, and no reserve opener, there's a real lack of options for Edgebaston.
In fairness, Manou was easily the best choice for the back-up keeper.a reserve keeper who's surely only there in case of Haddin spontaneously combusting on the morning of a test.
Agree largely.In fairness, Manou was easily the best choice for the back-up keeper.
I'm with Jack, I don't think there's a need for any panic changes for the next Test. Not so much because they're all playing awesomely but mainly because the other options are a change for the sake of change rather than "**** me, Player X is batting/bowling the house down. We HAVE to pick him somehow." The Lords match essentially came down to one bad batting performance (and it was a stinker). I say, back the guys who are there to come good.