your test selection

[lockyno1]

Tait and Johnson would walk into NZ's side! Don't call Australian bowlers nuffies, except Mick Lewis! Bracken is too slow, Johnson does the same as him with 10-15kmph more pace. Clark for mine and it is no dig at him but he is too like McGrath. It is probally a good thing to have a variety bowler in there rather than someone who is the same as another bowler!

 

[Macca]

OK Locky, your opinions have shown a clear bias and will be dismissed from now on.

Thanks.

 

[JJ]

Tait and Johnson would walk into NZ's side! Don't call Australian bowlers nuffies, except Mick Lewis! Bracken is too slow, Johnson does the same as him with 10-15kmph more pace. Clark for mine and it is no dig at him but he is too like McGrath. It is probally a good thing to have a variety bowler in there rather than someone who is the same as another bowler!

f**k off they would - that's arrogant bullsh*t.

Tait's f**king awful (and you already have one wild and expensive quick in the team, but by all means if you want to gift the Poms 4.5 rpo add him) and again Johnson has done nothing. CLark and Bracken are well ahead of them both, and deservedly so

 

[lockyno1]

OK Locky, your opinions have shown a clear bias and will be dismissed from now on.

Thanks.

Hold on my last post was not biased one single bit. I said Bracken was a good ODI bowler, but in tests as his record states he has been found wanting. Clark replaced McGrath which was fine and it worked well but do we really need 2 of the same bowlers, probally not in my view. So who have we got left- Johnson, or Tait. Depends what you want. Do you want a guy who has the potential to get 6 for not many in Tait or get 0-50. Or do you want a left armer in Johnson who does what Bracken does with 10-15kmph more pace. I actually don't know who I'd go for to be honest.

 

[lockyno1]

f**k off they would - that's arrogant bullsh*t.

Tait's f**king awful (and you already have one wild and expensive quick in the team, but by all means if you want to gift the Poms 4.5 rpo add him) and again Johnson has done nothing. CLark and Bracken are well ahead of them both, and deservedly so

RPO, I could not care less. We need to bowl them out twice to win the tests. IMO our batsmen score at 4.5-5 RPO anyway!

 

[Macca]

Hold on my last post was not biased one single bit. I said Bracken was a good ODI bowler, but in tests as his record states he has been found wanting. Clark replaced McGrath which was fine and it worked well but do we really need 2 of the same bowlers, probally not in my view. So who have we got left- Johnson, or Tait. Depends what you want. Do you want a guy who has the potential to get 6 for not many in Tait or get 0-50. Or do you want a left armer in Johnson who does what Bracken does with 10-15kmph more pace. I actually don't know who I'd go for to be honest.

Nothing to do with that.

Your comments on the Clarke/Watson discussion is what I was referring to.

Personally I can's split them. The fact is, though, Clarke's most recent form (which you dismissed) is better than Watsons (which you have gone to great lengths to defend), simple as that.

If you can't admit that then you are lying to yourself.

 

[lockyno1]

Nothing to do with that.

Your comments on the Clarke/Watson discussion is what I was referring to.

Personally I can's split them. The fact is, though, Clarke's most recent form (which you dismissed) is better than Watsons (which you have gone to great lengths to defend), simple as that.

If you can't admit that then you are lying to yourself.

Clarke's recent form probally is better. But are we talking about just one match. Watson's for in the Champions Trophy was better (I know it is ODI'S but realistically both of them haven't played a lot this year). Watson's 2nd last Pura Cup game he got 203 n.o. Look I agree there is not much between them. I'd go for Watson though as his bowling ability has to be considered.

 

[HevyDevy]

So now you are basing form on the Champions Trophy but when I do it for Watson then it is not on! See a problem with the logic there! Look Bracken is a great ODI bowler but I just don't think he's quick enough at test level. I'd rather go for Johnson or Tait with a bit more pace.

I don't see any problem with the logic given that I never once commented on your comments re: Watson.

By the way, Bracken is faster than McGrath.

 

[lockyno1]

By the way, Bracken is faster than McGrath.

Since when! He bowls 135 max. Johnson bowls 145kmh.

 

[JJ]

RPO, I could not care less. We need to bowl them out twice to win the tests. IMO our batsmen score at 4.5-5 RPO anyway!

well they didn't in the last Ashes... (or if they did, they didn't do it for long)

Hayden is no longer a dominating opening bat, there are huge questions over Langer, huge pressure on Martyn, Gilchrist has been relatively ordinary (at least by his standards) for a while now, neither Clarke nor Watson have proven themselves, and Ponting is a great without doubt but even he's saying his form's not the best atm...

 

[Jobdog]

Clarke's recent form probally is better. But are we talking about just one match. Watson's for in the Champions Trophy was better (I know it is ODI'S but realistically both of them haven't played a lot this year). Watson's 2nd last Pura Cup game he got 203 n.o. Look I agree there is not much between them. I'd go for Watson though as his bowling ability has to be considered.

Watson was better in the champions trophy?? Wasn't his highest score only 50, and the other two times he missed out. And both times he didn't learn from his previous mistakes. He got out twice playing pretty much the exact same shot. We don't want players getting themselves out on a regular basis throughout the Ashes.

 

[Macca]

Clarke's recent form probally is better. But are we talking about just one match. Watson's for in the Champions Trophy was better (I know it is ODI'S but realistically both of them haven't played a lot this year). Watson's 2nd last Pura Cup game he got 203 n.o. Look I agree there is not much between them. I'd go for Watson though as his bowling ability has to be considered.

It's ok for you to use Watsons CT form and his 2nd last Pura Cup match as an argument. They are good arguments and I agree with them.

It's when you say Clarke's 118 runs against England "not producing", and that Watson's 0 runs and 2 wickets against WA means something.

You need to apply the same standard to both players to reach an objective view and you are not doing that. It's ok to just have a gut feeling about someone but don't pass it off as anything other than a personal views.

 

[lockyno1]

Watson was better in the champions trophy?? Wasn't his highest score only 50, and the other two times he missed out. And both times he didn't learn from his previous mistakes. He got out twice playing pretty much the exact same shot. We don't want players getting themselves out on a regular basis throughout the Ashes.

Watson got 70 odd n.o in the final and about 10-15 wickets. Quite a lot of players got themselves out in that tournamnet, it was the nature of the pitches!

 

[lockyno1]

It's ok for you to use Watsons CT form and his 2nd last Pura Cup match as an argument. They are good arguments and I agree with them.

It's when you say Clarke's 118 runs against England "not producing", and that Watson's 0 runs and 2 wickets against WA means something.

How about I say not producing to his full potential. IMO like it or not the reality is that selectors notice hundreds or bags of wickets. That is just the way it is. I think both have their pros and cons. I just feel Clarke could really benefit from a season of Pura Cup matches where he can pile on the runs.

 

[Macca]

You're missing the point Locky.

 

[Jobdog]

Watson got 70 odd n.o in the final and about 10-15 wickets. Quite a lot of players got themselves out in that tournamnet, it was the nature of the pitches!

57 actually, along with another half century. But IMO that's counter-acted by the fact he got two ducks!

 

[lockyno1]

57 actually, along with another half century. But IMO that's counter-acted by the fact he got two ducks!

Not really. I think you'll find quite a few guys getting out early in that tournament. It was the pitches half the time. The balls he tried to pull on every single other wicket they were pull balls!

 

[lockyno1]

You're missing the point Locky.

No I am not, otherwise explain it better. I honestly feel that Clarke really needs a year in the Pura Cup to sort out his technique. He has to learn to bat in test cricket. He goes for a few too many shots early in his innings, that is what costs him currently.

 

[Jobdog]

Not really. I think you'll find quite a few guys getting out early in that tournament. It was the pitches half the time. The balls he tried to pull on every single other wicket they were pull balls!

No actually the balls he tried to pull were not balls u would play pull shots on. The match against the Windies first time around springs to mind. You're saying Clarke needs to work on his technique, well using that theory, so too does Watson. Who plays a pull shot from a left arm bowler bowling over the wicket off the third ball you face!

 

[lockyno1]

That ball I agree, and if he had his time again I am sure he'd have cut it instead of pulled it. But that was one ball. The other balls were pull balls but they held up on the pitch. I can't really fault Watson that much in terms of the shots he played.