Dave Hussey in for Symonds. Probably makes me more inclined to go with Clarke for Hauritz as well as the top 6 isn't as strong anymore, but I'll stick with what I said.I'm actually getting really keen on always picking five genuine frontline bowlers in this format, providing the top 6 is reasonably capable.
Here's some stats on Twenty20 Internationals involving the "big 8" teams.
The number seven batsman...
* only has to bat 79% of the time.
* contributes 11.15 runs per game.
* has only passed 50 twice in 55 Twenty20 Internationals - once when New Zealand were reduced to 64/5 and once when New Zealand were reduced to 31/5.
Basically, it's very much a bit-part role. I actually think it's more similar to the #8/9 ODI role than anything else. This was counter-balanaced in early Twenty20 games by the fact that part-time spinners often used to be able to roll out four cheap overs without the batsmen realising but as the format has evolved, we've seen less and less and less of this. Batting teams are now really successfully targeting the part-time bowlers, particularly when they know at the start of the innings that they're going to have to bowl a certain number of overs between them.
I'm not saying there's no value in having a #7 that can bat, but I'm definitely starting to believe that the fifth bowler in Twenty20 cricket is far, far more important than the seventh batsman. As such, I'd have absolutely no qualms at all with seeing someone like Swann, Johnson, Mills or even Harbhajan come out at 7.
Hence, my Australian team from the squad available:
6. M Hussey
The counter-argument to this is the fact that Dave Hussey actually has a really good Twenty20 bowling record - he's basically become a frontline bowler for Victoria. I'm still pretty sceptical about him though so I'd feel more comfortable with the above. If Watto was available to bowl I'd bring Dussey in for Siddle or Hauritz.