Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Jakester1288]

Any money on M Hussey losing his spot by series end?

If he doesn't perform during this series, it's time for his brother, or Hodge or someone to take his spot. If he shows consistent good form in the counties if he plays and the Australian domestic cricket, then he should be considered for the side again.

 

[inbox24]

Fully expecting Lee to have a Kasper or Gillespie-esque Ashes series. He really should have gone to play first class in England instead of the T20 tourneys.

 

[pup11]

If he doesn't perform during this series, it's time for his brother, or Hodge or someone to take his spot. If he shows consistent good form in the counties if he plays and the Australian domestic cricket, then he should be considered for the side again.

I doubt he would get dropped, but in case he gets dropped, then at his age, he ain't gonna comeback.

 

[Jakester1288]

I doubt he would get dropped, but in case he gets dropped, then at his age, he ain't gonna comeback.

I wouldn't rule him out, but I doubt he would come back. The sheer pressure of runs makes you a must in teams. Unless your name is Brad Hodge, of course.

Whilst Katich is 33, one year younger than Hussey, that year seems to make a big difference.

 

[aussie]

If Siddle and Johnson keep improving at the rate they've done over the past 12 months, Oz will beat SA 9/10 series IMO

Yes but thats just two of them plus Hilfenhaus. Has i said if the bowling attack is Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhas & McDonald. Regardless of how much Johnson & Siddle are likely to improve, such a inbalanced attack SA would smoke AUS.

SA showed that in the 4th innings of the 2nd test & the 3rd test.

Furthermore:

Ntini - basically gone

Morkel - going backwards

Morke is going backwards yea. But he is still a bit of an eniga, wouldn't right him off. Plus of course Wayne Parnell is around.

Boucher - on last legs

I honestly have seen no evidence of this.

Smith - battered by Jonhson and he's the only opener SA have at present.

Yea, Smith continues to have problems againts quality attacks. But who knows,maybe Prince could turn into a solid make-shift opener like Katich. Plus their middle-order still remains just a strong as AUS.

SA had their chance to go number 1 and came up short against a novice attack because the quality simply isnt there

There still aint much separating the two sides.

SA won in AUS because they had the better balanced bowling attack.

AUS won in SA because of the brilllaint performances by the pace trio & Hughes.

Unlike the ENG 05, AUS batting never looked under pressure of exposed (except for Hayden or Hussey). Only in melbourne 2nd innings & the dead rubber Jo'Brug test, was AUS restricted to a sub-300 score.

Lets not fool ourselves, although SA won in AUS, it was as much a lucky escape - as they were down and out in the first two tests but won them due to the superb individual brillainces of a few individuals and the fact Australia was playing with at least one injured quick, and the balance of their attack were novices.

Yes & why did they escape in Melbourne?, because AUS bowling balance was awful & Lee getting injured made the situation worse not doubt.

But ATT as i remember i was saying pick 4 seamers. If Hilfenhaus of Bollinger was picked instead of Haurtiz. At least you would have had 3 fit quicks & maybe the Dumminy/Steyn partnership wouldn't have flourised. SA made AUS pay for idiotic selections..

Come on. You don't get THAT lucky for two Tests in a row against a team like SA.

It was. SA only began to catch themselves in the 4th innings of the 2nd test.

It was basically the same thing in from what occured in AUS, only difference is that Johnson stepped up magnificently along with Siddle & Hilfenhaus, along with Hughes (who after controlling Hayden, they clearly wouldn't have expected the young man to come like that, that shocked everyone).

In the 3rd test SA finally came to terms with bowling attack, thus exposing the weakness in McDonald & McGain.

Yeah, aussie is clearly ignoring contributions likes of McDonald, Katich, North and Hilfenhaus made, Johnson, Hughes and Siddle were obviously the main contributors, but from where I see things, every member of the Australian side contributed to the cause at one point or other, and it was this team-effort that helped Aus beat SA in their own backyard.

Haa...you clearly have read me wrong b..

 

[tooextracool]

Morke is going backwards yea. But he is still a bit of an eniga, wouldn't right him off. Plus of course Wayne Parnell is around.

Out of curiousity, why exactly is Morkel rated as highly as he is? Ive looked at his FC record and its nothing out of the ordinary, his test record is mediocre, and his bowling everytime I've seen it is shockingly poor along with his bowling action. He has a few natural attributes in his favor but theres nothing else that shouts out that he has the potential to be a very good bowler at the moment.

Yea, Smith continues to have problems againts quality attacks. But who knows,maybe Prince could turn into a solid make-shift opener like Katich. Plus their middle-order still remains just a strong as AUS.

Smith had a good time against Australia in Australia and didnt disgrace himself at home. That he gets injured often when hes batted lately against the likes of Mitch doesnt change his overall batting ability. Still has weaknesses against the in-swinger though, its a pity that England didnt employ Hoggard's services last year to sort him out.

SA won in AUS because they had the better balanced bowling attack.

Nope, they won because of Dale Steyn and their batting. Their batting was also a big component in their victory over in England.

 

[aussie]

Out of curiousity, why exactly is Morkel rated as highly as he is? Ive looked at his FC record and its nothing out of the ordinary, his test record is mediocre, and his bowling everytime I've seen it is shockingly poor along with his bowling action. He has a few natural attributes in his favor but theres nothing else that shouts out that he has the potential to be a very good bowler at the moment.

Yea your pretty much on point. I'd say in IND he looked impresisve, then since he came to ENG he has gradually become a bowler who can give bowl a unplayable delivery & then bowl alot of boundary balls.

Its clear for batsman he aint the most comfortable bowlers to face, i honestly feel he is one BIG spell away from becoming a consistent force. But If he doesn't step up vs ENG later this year (presuming he plays), things will not be looking too great for him no doubt...

Smith had a good time against Australia in Australia and didnt disgrace himself at home. That he gets injured often when hes batted lately against the likes of Mitch doesnt change his overall batting ability. Still has weaknesses against the in-swinger though, its a pity that England didnt employ Hoggard's services last year to sort him out.

AUS attack in AUS was poor given the injury woes to Lee, in experience ATT to Siddle etc & the poorly balanced attack that the selectors chose.

Has you rightfully said even in ENG in 08, the selectors made similar mistakes on some flat pitches. When Anderson dismissed him in the Oval test, it was really the first time in that entire series that they had tried that inswinger.

Nope, they won because of Dale Steyn and their batting. Their batting was also a big component in their victory over in England.

No doubt the proteas played collectively as a unit. But both ENG & AUS made some horrendous selectorial blunders in the make up of their bowling attacks which Saffies took advantage of. Thats what good teams do.

 

[Top_Cat]

It was. SA only began to catch themselves in the 4th innings of the 2nd test.

It was basically the same thing in from what occured in AUS, only difference is that Johnson stepped up magnificently along with Siddle & Hilfenhaus, along with Hughes (who after controlling Hayden, they clearly wouldn't have expected the young man to come like that, that shocked everyone).

In the 3rd test SA finally came to terms with bowling attack, thus exposing the weakness in McDonald & McGain.

Sorry, don't buy it even a little.

 

[Top_Cat]

Out of curiousity, why exactly is Morkel rated as highly as he is? Ive looked at his FC record and its nothing out of the ordinary, his test record is mediocre, and his bowling everytime I've seen it is shockingly poor along with his bowling action. He has a few natural attributes in his favor but theres nothing else that shouts out that he has the potential to be a very good bowler at the moment.

Clearly, it has little to do with his record to date. He's tall, really quick and hits the seam, nasty bounce, hip-to-heart, etc. Has all the attributes to be a top bowler, just isn't putting it all together yet.

 

[DaRick]

Well, he's defied my expectations and done well vs Sussex. Unfortunately, so did every other paceman. Plus, he's been expensive and conceeded too many no-balls.

 

[pup11]

Well, he's defied my expectations and done well vs Sussex. Unfortunately, so did every other paceman. Plus, he's been expensive and conceeded too many no-balls.

Binga seems to be pretty determined to prove his critics wrong with this series, but the problem is there are so many small areas of his bowling where he urgently needs to do some work.

He has talking about how fit he has been, and how he can still bowl as quickly as ever, but problems like leaking runs, and bowling no-balls, have been trubling him for a while now, and I would have thought that he would have worked on these things, when he was away from the game.

Lee has this tendency to bowl a few lose balls every now and then in a spell, which is often good enough to ruin, all the good work he does in a spell, and it also releases pressure on the batsmen.

So at almost the age of 33, Lee should be thinking about tighten his game, rather than only concentrating about running in and knocking a batsman' block off.

 

[NUFAN]

Nothing worse then seeing Brett Lee 'get a wicket' from a no ball. He gets SMASHED after it happens on almost every occasion.

 

[Uppercut]

Out of curiousity, why exactly is Morkel rated as highly as he is? Ive looked at his FC record and its nothing out of the ordinary, his test record is mediocre, and his bowling everytime I've seen it is shockingly poor along with his bowling action. He has a few natural attributes in his favor but theres nothing else that shouts out that he has the potential to be a very good bowler at the moment.

He probably has "**** when you're watching" syndrome because in truth he's been quite hit-and-miss. Bowled some excellent spells as well as the horrid ones you mention.

 

[scorpiogal]

Well, he's defied my expectations and done well vs Sussex. Unfortunately, so did every other paceman. Plus, he's been expensive and conceeded too many no-balls.

According to the coach, the boys bowled all those no-balls because of the slope Apparently running down/up it caused some problems.

But you know, he got 3 wickets. I'm satisfied with that, for now. All he has to do is find his rhythm.

 

[tooextracool]

Clearly, it has little to do with his record to date. He's tall, really quick and hits the seam, nasty bounce, hip-to-heart, etc. Has all the attributes to be a top bowler, just isn't putting it all together yet.

I think hes Harmison, with a worse action. Can't see him being a constant threat unless he fixes that IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think hes Harmison, with a worse action. Can't see him being a constant threat unless he fixes that IMO.

Yar, exactly what I said was mentioned about Harmison early on too. The 'putting it all together' bit is where he and GBH have struggled. Natural talent is all well and good but won't get you a place at the Test Greats table.

 

[aussie]

Sorry, don't buy it even a little.

Well for one, i know you are in the camp that believes McDonald is not garbage. Which is believe is clouding your judgement of the series, so if i can get you away from that view, you will be in my camp ASAP.

Historically their has been been a fair few series like the one in SA. Where by although the opposition is weaker, they are able to topple the superior team - thanks to superb superb individual performance & exposing an achillies heel in that side as well.

For eg:

West Indies v ENG 1954. West Indies where clearly weaker, but won the first two tests mainly due to their spin duo of Ramadin/Valentine. England managed to pull things later in that series as they managed to work out a strategy to counter them.

Ind vs AUS 2001. India where clearly weaker on paper also. As everyone knows Laxman & Harbhajan did most of the damage here. Although Australia where on a rampage, Harbhajan exposed AUS old achillies heel vs spin.


WI vs IND 2002. The Indians clearly where better than WI, but WI victory ATT proved that the Indians where poor travellers & their historical achillies heel vs pace remained.

Can't remember anymore off my head right now. But hopefully you see my point...

 

[Top_Cat]

Well for one, i know you are in the camp that believes McDonald is not garbage. Which is believe is clouding your judgement of the series, so if i can get you away from that view, you will be in my camp ASAP.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

.

Historically their has been been a fair few series like the one in SA. Where by although the opposition is weaker, they are able to topple the superior team - thanks to superb superb individual performance & exposing an achillies heel in that side as well.

I don't think the win in SA was simply down to a superb individual peformance though. Johnson proved in Perth that you can't have one person doing the job for a test match (let alone the whole series) and come up trumps.

The players around you have to be helping out too, and that's what changed in SA.

 

[Andre]

Nah, no chance, Huss is going through a bit of rough patch, but still I would back him to play out a few gritty knocks in this series.

I must admit to being very concerned about him. He doesn't just look out of form to me. The fact he has been hit a few times in the last few series isn't a good sign. It's not like he's just been playing and missing, he has been getting cleaned up. His feet look heavier and slower, and I don't think he possesses the natural ability to thrive in Test cricket without being absolutely at the peak of his powers. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds, but wouldn't suprise me if we saw Clarke at 4, North at 5 and Watson at 6 by the next Aussie summer, with North holding out for about 18 months before Ferguson and co. take the step up.

As for Lee, even though he took 3-fer, I thought he looked like the 4th best of the quicks on display. I wouldn't have him in my XI for the first Test. Stuart Clark, however, is a must, especially now that he has his zip and bounce back.