Australia's team for Thursday

Its an interesting conundrum for Thursday. Is Johnson available? Im assuming they are going to continue rotating seamers. Any chance of Warner coming back from South Africa in time for T2? I'd have
Warner
Rogers
Clarke
Hughes
Smith
Haddin
Johnson
Agar
Siddle
Pattinson
Bird

Starc was less than impressive, and probably needs some time off, the #3 position is a very difficult conundrum. I think Warner is more capable of doing what Watson is supposed to at the top of the order, seek and destroy. You'll notice that I picked only ten players. My issue is that I have no idea where you put Watson, I think he would be better suited to five, but that means Hughes goes three, which I think is too high. Australia came within 14 runs of a win, so I dont think wholesale changes are necessary, that said, the closenes is in no small part due to the Two tenth wicket partnerships worth around 220, so changes are definitely needed.

Mitchell Johnson?
Not in the squad as far as I'm aware.
Can't see Warner coming in. Lehmann has said that Watson is his opener. That's not going to change after just one test. Don't see Clarke batting at three either. Hasn't he always resisted moving up the order?
CAN see Khawaja coming in for Cowan and, as you say, either Bird or Harris for Starc, but I don't think there'll be wholesale changes.

What about this following XI to play for Australia on Thursday :-

1 Watson
2 Rogers
3 Agar
4 Clarke
5 Smith
6 Hughes
7 Haddin
8 Pattinson
9 Siddle
10 Starc
11 Bird

Having put up a far more impressive fight than they were expected to, I don't think Australia should change things around too much. Nathan Lyon would remain unlucky to be unselected, but Ashton Agar played a terrific innins with the bat and showed some potential with the ball, though he has a long way to go, to even reach the Lyon level with the ball, and that wonderful show with the bat should see him get a couple more chances at least in the series.
If anything, I think Ed Cowan's position needs to be looked at. Khawaja, who has been travelling around without any real game time for long should get a chance perhaps. No change in the bowling department in my view.

Watson just isnt an opener in Test cricket. I dont know why the Australians dont want to accept this.

I can see Agar batting six by the end of the marathon Ashes.

Shane Watson opening: 26 Matches, 42.47, 2 hundreds
Shane Watson anywhere else: 17 Matches, 23.62, 0 hundreds

Definitely an opener.

Didnt know he average 40+ as an opener.. The other average is probably skewed by the fact that he was originally in the squad because he could bowl at 150 clicks... So its not quite a fair comparison

Yeah, bowling more at the start of his career didn't help him and being constantly in and out of the side because of injuries also didn't help but he works well as an opener IMO. Considering Warner hasn't set the world alight either I'd stick with Watson. Plus he makes it a right-left combo, which whilst not necessary is always helpful

Warner averages 45 in FC.. has three hundreds in nineteen tests vs Watsons 2 in 43. His 100 vs South Africa is the best anyone has played vs our attack, anywhere, in the last three years... Clarke and Hussey scored tons, but but Warner was destroying us with his top order falling by the wayside. It was awesome cricket. Not advocating firing Watson, but Im sure Oz can fit Rogers, Watson and Warner in this line-up... Maybe not in the past, but right now, definitely

kingraf wrote:Warner averages 45 in FC.. has three hundreds in nineteen tests vs Watsons 2 in 43. His 100 vs South Africa is the best anyone has played vs our attack, anywhere, in the last three years... Clarke and Hussey scored tons, but but Warner was destroying us with his top order falling by the wayside. It was awesome cricket. Not advocating firing Watson, but Im sure Oz can fit Rogers, Watson and Warner in this line-up... Maybe not in the past, but right now, definitely

Could Warner bat at 3?
Don't think it'll happen in the next test, but if Cowan doesn't have a good game (if picked) someone'll have to step up.

Ed Cowan should be canned. Nothing against the lad, but he's not Test class.

Usman Khawaja's not really a stand out. I'd rather the Australians picked Wade as a pure batsman at 3. Wade is aggressive and used to facing the new ball.

In the bowling front. Mitchell Starc should be canned. Yes he takes wickets. But builds no pressure. Shown be his Beamer at Clarke on day 4.

Ryan Harris is Australia's most talented bowler and has to come in.

Harris can also bat, Starc's a decent slogger but he's not got the technically ability to get runs in England.

The reason why Lyon and Bird aren't in line to play is due to their lack of batting skills.

Sorry I forgot Warner.

Australia can't have Watson and Warner in their top 3.

Warner's competing with Hughes and Smith. Both played well in Nottingham. So Warner can wait for his chance.

Cowan wont mind. Has a degree in analytics, wrote a book, cricket is a hobby for him... Wont mind the drop

kingraf wrote:Its an interesting conundrum for Thursday. Is Johnson available? Im assuming they are going to continue rotating seamers. Any chance of Warner coming back from South Africa in time for T2? I'd have
Warner
Rogers
Clarke
Hughes
Smith
Haddin
Johnson
Agar
Siddle
Pattinson
Bird

Starc was less than impressive, and probably needs some time off, the #3 position is a very difficult conundrum. I think Warner is more capable of doing what Watson is supposed to at the top of the order, seek and destroy. You'll notice that I picked only ten players. My issue is that I have no idea where you put Watson, I think he would be better suited to five, but that means Hughes goes three, which I think is too high. Australia came within 14 runs of a win, so I dont think wholesale changes are necessary, that said, the closenes is in no small part due to the Two tenth wicket partnerships worth around 220, so changes are definitely needed.

Warner is asked to go to SA with the A team, i suppose. So i don't see his inclusion. Your squad contain 5 bowlers. Watson is bowling beautifully, so he would bettet play the role of fifth bowler. Regarding Cowan, i too agree dropping and Usman khwaja should be given a chance. Starc not looking much effective so Bird a fair choice. Watson should open with Rogers.

Do you think that perhaps agar's fantastic innings could actually benefit england in the next few tests? It is very unlikely that he will be dropped, and yet his bowling was not very threatening even on a pitch which offered a little assistance. As has been mentioned earlier his bowling does not look upto the standard of lyons.

Some of this has already been pointed out but:

David Warner - has not batted in ages and was flown out to Zimbabwe yesterday.
Mitchell Johnson - not in the squad. If he is in the country beacuse he would yet again collapse in front of barmy army crowd mocking him also because:
Mitchell Starc - took 5 wickets and bowled much better than Johnson has in years.


Aussies need to do something with their batsmen - but what? the state of batting in Sheffield Shield is dire right now, reflected by the men chosen for this tour. Watson, Warner, Cowan, Rogers, Hughes have all opened for Australia, yet none fill with confidence.

I repeat that I don't think Cowan should bat 3 - your 3 has to be able to dominate and make big scores. On that basis, I'd play Rogers there rather than Cowan.

I wouldn't be too upset with giving Khawaja another shot at 3 in place of Cowan with Warner not around.

Watson opens or doesn't play - he doesn't score enough hundreds to bat 3 or 4, and can't nudge and nurdle well enough to bat 5 or 6. The stats back this up; even in the last few years, his record at 3 and 4 are poor (from memory averages high 20s).

The rest of the side probably stays unchanged, with perhaps one of the other bowlers coming in for Starc who hasn't hit his straps all tour (he seems a bit floaty). As others have said, Agar remains thanks to his freakish innings, which may not be the best thing for Aus.

LondonTiger - ah, Mitchell Johnson. Devastated he's not in the squad. I well remember his stella pre-lunch spell at Lord's in 2009 when England were 126-0 for wicket at the interval. Absolute magic.

Johnson still has a fantastic record, one only rivalled by Aderson in this series. Its a pity he wasnt given a chance to redeem himself.

kingraf wrote:Johnson still has a fantastic record, one only rivalled by Aderson in this series. Its a pity he wasnt given a chance to redeem himself.

He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right. Mitchell Johnson is...quite an inconsistent bowler  

In some ways I'd liken MJ to Steve Harmison - on his day and in the right conditions bordering on unplayable, but on a bad day absolutely unbowlable (and as with Harmy, his batting is often a good barometer of his bowling).The big question is how many good days is he likely to have bowling in English conditions? Past experience suggests he'd have one outstanding match in a 5 test series, and probably swing the result to an Aussie win, but he'd also have one OK-ish match and 3 shockers.

Given the potential in Australia's younger seam bowlers, I don't have an issue with the selectors leaving him out of the squad at the moement.

I think they are right to stick with their selections.   They have a really promising young set of bowlers.

I reckon we'll see MJ back down under. He is unplayable of some of those wickets.

kingraf wrote:Warner averages 45 in FC.. has three hundreds in nineteen tests vs Watsons 2 in 43. His 100 vs South Africa is the best anyone has played vs our attack, anywhere, in the last three years... Clarke and Hussey scored tons, but but Warner was destroying us with his top order falling by the wayside. It was awesome cricket. Not advocating firing Watson, but Im sure Oz can fit Rogers, Watson and Warner in this line-up... Maybe not in the past, but right now, definitely

Forgetting Pietersen at Headingley. David Warner is totally incapable of playing an innings resembling anything like that amount of class.

I will be honest, I did forget it. But I still rate Warners a little higher... KP's was remarkable, one of the great innings, Warner's was just nasty....

Australian team selection should be fairly starightforward...on early evidence they do not over complicate under Boof.

Cowans is the only one under threat....... Australia has too much of sameness in Rogers, Cowans and Hughes...close to the body nudge and steer type left handed pushers and not really stroke players.

and Cowans is the weakest of the 3...who do they replace him with ?
they don't have Warner....so it is down to Khawaja only...whom I haven't seen much of...but hope he is a better stroke player.
can someone confirm ?

He is a cultured Phil Hughes, imo.

He's talented (whatever that word actually means) but lazy and (somewhat consequently) prone to getting out to very soft dismissals (in the sense that the bowler bowls a decent ball, he plays a nothing shot rather than a bad one, and gets out for no good reason). He does however have a far greater range of strokes than Cowan or indeed Rogers.

I don't like Cowan at 3. I can see the reasoning for him opening alongside someone like Warner, but with Rogers there... probably Khawaja deserves another shot.

To be completely honest I was a little disappointed with the aussie pace attack. There was a lot written about them before the series, but this was my first real opportunity to see them. Did they underperform? Or was that a true indicator of their ability? They bowled some good stuff, but at times looked a bit toothless and a lot of the times the batsmen got themselves out. Should I expect more in the second test? Was that their best attack, or should harris come in?

LivinginItaly wrote:To be completely honest I was a little disappointed with the aussie pace attack. There was a lot written about them before the series, but this was my first real opportunity to see them. Did they underperform? Or was that a true indicator of their ability? They bowled some good stuff, but at times looked a bit toothless and a lot of the times the batsmen got themselves out. Should I expect more in the second test? Was that their best attack, or should harris come in?

they just didn't fire on all cylinder...pace, direction, control, reverse swing...one of the 4 elements was missing in most of their spells...and hence they couldn't have an anderson-sque effect.

actually neotehr of the other 2 English seamers could also get all right in a single spell......Anderson simply stood heads and shoulders above the rest of the pack on either side

Ryan Harris, when fit, still could be the best of a quality lot of seamers. However, him staying fit has proved to be a difficult task, and he isn't getting any younger. But I expect him to take field in a few games at least. Mitchell Starc not finding his range might be the opening for Harris, and he might come in as early as the 2nd test.

Khawaja will surely replace Cowan. Else they may as well not have bought him a plane ticket.
Warner has gone to Africa for practice (extended penance?)

Harris or Bird might come in for Starc...but they do like their left armers so who knows ?
Heard a suggestion they could play two spinners if it looks dry but that sounds like another (unconvincing) smokescreen.

Jackson Bird should play at Lords as he could easily produce the same devastating spell of pace bowling that Glenn McGrath managed to do at Lords V England back in 1997. On that occasion too England started that Lords test match in 1997 with a 1-0 test series lead.

alfie wrote:Khawaja will surely replace Cowan. Else they may as well not have bought him a plane ticket.
Warner has gone to Africa for practice (extended penance?)

Harris or Bird might come in for Starc...but they do like their left armers so who knows ?
Heard a suggestion they could play two spinners if it looks dry but that sounds like another (unconvincing) smokescreen.

Agree on Khawaja there. The Australian batting has been going through a prolonged difficult face, yet Khawaja isn't getting any real game time despite traveling with the squad consistently. Looks like India's stubbornness during the 8-0 days. But at least the players India retained were proven performers who did well for many years. But other than Michael Clarke and to some extent Shane Watson, no other player in that Australian lineup can have similar claims.
And the 2 spinner talk just sounds like the 5 bowler theory before the first game. At least in the latter case, there could have been some justification, but playing Lyon and Agar together in a 4 man bowling unit, is a ridiculous idea that is unlikely to work even as a smokescreen.

msp83 wrote:

alfie wrote:Khawaja will surely replace Cowan. Else they may as well not have bought him a plane ticket.
Warner has gone to Africa for practice (extended penance?)

Harris or Bird might come in for Starc...but they do like their left armers so who knows ?
Heard a suggestion they could play two spinners if it looks dry but that sounds like another (unconvincing) smokescreen.

Agree on Khawaja there. The Australian batting has been going through a prolonged difficult face, yet Khawaja isn't getting any real game time despite traveling with the squad consistently. Looks like India's stubbornness during the 8-0 days. But at least the players India retained were proven performers who did well for many years. But other than Michael Clarke and to some extent Shane Watson, no other player in that Australian lineup can have similar claims.
And the 2 spinner talk just sounds like the 5 bowler theory before the first game. At least in the latter case, there could have been some justification, but playing Lyon and Agar together in a 4 man bowling unit, is a ridiculous idea that is unlikely to work even as a smokescreen.

Well Australia could promote Agar to bat at 3, drop Steve Smith and bring in a specialist batsman like Khawaja in to bat at 7, whilst moving Haddin up to 6. This batting strategy is similar to what SA used V England last summer in which JP Duminy was the guy who came in to bat at 7. So an Australian XI for the Lords test could be :-

1 Watson
2 Rogers
3 Agar
4 Clarke
5 Hughes
6 Haddin
7 Khawaja
8 Pattinson
9 Siddle
10 Lyon
11 Bird

LivinginItaly wrote:To be completely honest I was a little disappointed with the aussie pace attack. There was a lot written about them before the series, but this was my first real opportunity to see them. Did they underperform? Or was that a true indicator of their ability? They bowled some good stuff, but at times looked a bit toothless and a lot of the times the batsmen got themselves out. Should I expect more in the second test? Was that their best attack, or should harris come in?

Australia need to unleash Patrick Cummins on England's batsmen if they are wanting a trio of true Terror Bowlers. No batting lineup in the World (including SA and India's) will like to face a very fast and hostile trio of Speedsters in Cummins and Starc with the new ball, with Pattinson as the first change bowler!

You know, in a few years, I actually expect that to be true

Strongly rumoured this morning to be Khawaja in for Cowan and Harris for Starc.

Does that mean a re-jigging of the batting order, as I thought Khawaja tends to bat at 5 or 6?

Khawaja debuted at 3 against England at Sydney. He has played a few times in the middle-order also, but I've always felt he was a natural number 3.

So Ryan Harris is in for 1 of the 2 Tests the selectors say his body will allow.

Starc is being 'rotated'...