Teams for Australia VS Worcestershire

[Occasional Fan]

... and an overnight declaration to keep Seamer happy. Worcs now 61-3, with Gillespie on 2-25 and the third wicket to Tait.

[Seamer]

Very happy. Kasprowicz gets 5-67 off 15!! Pity it will count for nothing, the CA marketing boys have already sent the directive to the Aussie selectors to pick Gillespie regardless and for him to keep his greasy mullet. (I am such a cynic) Aussies will win despite Gillespie anyway. He did absolutely nothing at Lords and we still won in a canter.
Onya Kaspa anyway.

[Aussie-Yank]

Only problem with Kaspa was 20 runs to expensive and the 7 no balls he bowled - Interesting to see Ponting and Clarke open for Australia in the second

[GlennMcGrath500]

Clarke opened with ponting and they bothe scored 59

[Trescothick]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Only problem with Kaspa was 20 runs to expensive and the 7 no balls he bowled - Interesting to see Ponting and Clarke open for Australia in the second

I would happily take 5 wickets for 63 runs anyday of the week. If the other bowlers are bowling anywhere near as good that will mean the team bowled them out for under 200 runs, which they did.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Only problem with Kaspa was 20 runs to expensive and the 7 no balls he bowled

-

Are you then saying that 5-47 is a par performance and any more is just not good enough! 5-67 is a matchwinning performance in anyone's books. You need bowlers who can take wickets to win matches, not just ones that can contain. Correct me if i am wrong but has'nt Kasprowicz taken as many wickets in this one innings than Gillespie has taken in the whole tour.
This comment was made toungue in cheek surely

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Seamer

-

Are you then saying that 5-47 is a par performance and any more is just not good enough! 5-67 is a matchwinning performance in anyone's books. You need bowlers who can take wickets to win matches, not just ones that can contain. Correct me if i am wrong but has'nt Kasprowicz taken as many wickets in this one innings than Gillespie has taken in the whole tour.
This comment was made toungue in cheek surely

Mate, I want Kaspa in the Australian side, But he is trying to push Dizzy out of the side. One of the problems linked to Kaspa is the amount of no balls made and that he has been more expensive. Both of these points have been highlighted in this game. The fact he took 5 wickets is great, but Lee was taking wickets in these type of matches as well, but was unable to crack the Australian side - for what reason - the amount of runs he was giving away. Australia work on a system of pressure, giving away easy runs reduces that pressure on the batsman.

Making statements that you would take 5 wickets for more runs is fine to say - but the fact is the innings was to try and push back into the Australian side - The 5 wickets is a positive, but he failed to negate the negative side of his bowling. With Dizzy taking 2 wickets and keeping the score down is enough for him to keep his position. Dizzy and Kaspa are the support bowlers to our strike bowlers (Lee & McGrath). So keeping the runs down are just as important to Australia as taking wickets. Therefore Kaspa will miss out.

[Seamer]

I agree that Gillespie will get the nod. But to say he has been the model of economy this tour - well he has been pretty much hammered most of the time (Kaspa as well granted). This match: Gillespie 2-45 off 12, Kaspa 5-67 off 15. Both of a similar ecomomy rate (around 4 an over) but Kaspa got more wickets, and the prize one of Solanki.

If McGrath and Lee fail to Knock over the top order, we might be in trouble. Kaspa, unlike Gillespie, is a specialist change bowler and a work horse to boot. Gillespies fitness and stamina is a little suspect as well. At the end of the day though, Kaspa did,nt take his chance early in the tour, Lee did, and Gillespie was just lucky to get the nod. Gillespi is not exactly bowling badly now, so Kaspa will be lucky to get a test now i think. Damn shame too.

[Aussie-Yank]

Yep, I agree Kaspa is a better bowler with the old ball - unfortunately on the flip side of the bowling argument is Dizzy is doing some fine batting (another half century). I do feel more sure of Dizzy hanging around with someone than Kaspa.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Sorry, I think that batting capability should be virtually irrelevant when talking about your bowlers unless you've got a true all-rounder. I think that Seamer's argument that Kaspa should have played the first test ahead of Dizzy were reasonable. I suspect that he was picked in an expectation that he would find form, and was at least starting to show some glimpses. IF Dizzy is bowling his way back into form, then I think that the selectors got it right. I also agree with Seamer that its highly likely that Dizzy will play this test, although possibly for reasons other than PR. Having said that, Kaspa has been desperately unlucky that his form blip coincided with Gillespie's. Both bowlers have done enough over the past couple of years to have kept Lee out of the first test if they were close to form. If Dizzy was in-form, I think that the selectors would have shown Kaspa the same faith they showed Dizzy. As it stands, I hope that Kaspa does play in this series. I've got remarkable respect for what he has contributed to Oz, not just in the last couple of years, but have memories of him carrying the bowling in an Indian tour. Unfortunately he is one of those players that has always deserved more than the selectors have given him.

ps. think your comments on the runs and no-balls missed the mark