Watson's layoff & consequences

[Nostromo]

Quagmire, I was not aware that Brad Hodge had bowling abilities worth consideration but if he does, that would be another reason to choose him in Watson's place. That would leave Bracken, McGrath, Tait and Hogg to bowl their full 10 overs with Symonds doing the bulk of the 5th bowling option assisted by Clarke and Hodge.

BTW, I have seen Ponting bowl not-bad medium pacers in the Collingwood mould. Since the current conditions seem to assist such bowlers, do you think he should try himself and see how it goes?

[Quagmire]

Oh yes Ponting got Vaughan out caught behind in the 2005 ashes he bowls around the 125k/ph mark.

[acker]

Hayden
Gilchrist
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
---------
Hogg
Clark
Bracken
Tait
McGrath

Probably still enough fire power batting to pull it off, teams tend to lose their way in limited overs matches if they have too much batting.
Hodge in for Hussey might be on the selectors thoughts though.

[Younis Khan #1]

That selection is never gonna happen 5 specialist bowlers and not one of them an all-rounder?

[Quagmire]

Also with Symonds and Clarke in the side means they only need four bowlers which will be Hogg, McGrath, Bracken and Tait. If Lee was not injured he would be in for Tait. Watson is not really needed anyway I think the Australian team is stronger with Hodge instead of Watson, it does not look like Hodge will get a game if Watson does not play because they have James Hopes on call.

[Younis Khan #1]

So in which order do you think the aussie's will line up?

[acker]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Also with Symonds and Clarke in the side means they only need four bowlers which will be Hogg, McGrath, Bracken and Tait. If Lee was not injured he would be in for Tait. Watson is not really needed anyway I think the Australian team is stronger with Hodge instead of Watson, it does not look like Hodge will get a game if Watson does not play because they have James Hopes on call.

Australia's biggest concern at the moment is its bowling not its batting. Its getting the runs on the board easy enough defending them seems to be the weakness. I would prefer to see Symonds as a bowling reserve in case we only want to bowl someone being got at half their overs. Start putting to many batters in and you end up under utilizing your power hitters like Symonds and end up with silly 3-250 or 4-250 type of scores rather than the where you do fully utilize your power batters 7-310 or 8-310 type of scores.
I hate nothing more than seeing someone make a slow century at the expense of team totall runs.

[Younis Khan #1]

Originally Posted by acker

Australia's biggest concern at the moment is its bowling not its batting. Its getting the runs on the board easy enough defending them seems to be the weakness. I would prefer to see Symonds as a bowling reserve in case we only want to bowl someone being got at half their overs. Start putting to many batters in and you end up under utilizing your power hitters like Symonds and end up with silly 3-250 or 4-250 type of scores rather than the where you do fully utilize your power batters 7-310 or 8-310 type of scores.
I hate nothing more than seeing someone make a slow century at the expense of team totall runs.

Australia bowled SA out for 294 on a grand pitch during the group phase! Baring in mind that South Africa were supposedly the best team in the world prior to the WC, that seems rather impressive for an attack that fails to defend big totals, don't you think?

I am aware that it was only in the series against NZ, merely weeks before the WC that australia were losing matches having batted first and accumilated over 300 plus runs. But i think such issues have been partially ammended, and since they are currently unbeaten as well as looking on better form than ever, i see no reason for the inclusion of a fifth specialist bowler.

[acker]

294 is a pretty high score Younis, I'd be concerned as the captain having bowlers going for that much.

Something is still not right we need another bowler. And that performance against South Africa only helped confirm it.

[Quagmire]

Australia's batting has not been a problem but there is nothing wrong with there bowling, its no worse than it has been in the past.

Key
Games won
Games lost from poor bowling
Games lost from poor batting


CB Series.
Vs England 8/242 - McGrath (2), Bracken (3), Clark (1), Johnson (2), Clarke (0) & White (0) - Aus won by 8 wickets
Vs New Zealand 10/184 - Bracken (1), Hilfenhaus (1), Johnson (2), Clark (2), Symonds (2) & White (1) - Aus won by 105 runs
Vs England 10/155 - Lee (2), Bracken (3), McGrath (3), Johnson (0), Symonds (0), Whtie (1) - Aus won by 4 wickets
Vs New Zealand 10/218 - Lee (2), Bracken (1), McGrath (3), Clark (4), Symonds (0) & White (0) - Aus won by 2 wickets
Vs England 10/110 - Lee (2), Johnson (4), Clark (1), Symonds (1) & Hogg (2) - Aus won by 9 wickets
Vs New Zealand 5/335 - Lee (0), Bracken (0), McGrath (1), Johnson (1), Clarke (2) & Symonds (0) - Aus won by 8 runs
Vs England 7/292 - Tait (2), Bracken (1), Clark (0), McGrath (2), Clarke (0), Symonds (0) & White (1) - Eng won by 92 runs
Vs New Zealand 7/290 - Lee (2), Tait (1), Clark (2), Johnson (0), Clarke (2) & White (0) - Aus won by 5 wickets
Vs England 6/253 - Lee (3), Bracken (1), McGrath (0), Watson (1), Hogg (0) & Clarke (0) - Eng won by 4 wickets
Vs England 8/246 - Lee (1), Bracken (2), McGrath (2), Watson (0), Hussey (0) & Hogg (0) - Eng won by 34 runs

Chappell-Hadlee series
Game 1 - 0/149 - McGrath, Bracken, Johnson, Watson, Hogg
Game 2 - 5/340 - Bracken (2), McGrath (0), Tait (0), Watson (3), Hogg (0) & White (0)
Game 3 - 9/350 - Bracken (1), Tait (2), Johnson (3), Watson (2), Hogg (0) & Voges (0)