Axis of Bob

Ryan Harris is a very handy replacement. Amazing that, injury aside, he is no longer an automatic inclusion.

That's what they tried to do last year. Unfortunately it then needs to be voted on by the members (ie, countries), and we all know what happens then! ICC voting reflects less what is best for the game and more what is best for the individual cricket boards. On a related note, I am so happy that the VFL clubs had the good sense to hand their power over to an independent body.

You are seeing what you want to see from the comment. It's a non-issue. It's less than a non-issue. It's the issue that non-issues ignore due to a lack of substance. In fact Dravid's grandmother's pet gerbil's strangely coloured turd has laid greater claim to importance than that comment.

I don't see the problem with those comments from Dravid. They are in an impossible position where the overwhelming likelihood is that they will lose the match. They have 8 wickets in hand and 180 overs to bat. They're stuffed. Completely and utterly. So, if the context of the match, he is right. They have nothing to lose. If they lose the match then it will not be a comment on their batting of the next two days, so they are free to bat without the weight of expectation. They can't lose because they can only lose. But if they don't lose ........ India have effectively already lost this match. They are not batting to avoid a loss, they are batting to claim a draw.

Agreed Nasher. It's just a number and he only had one more thing to prove. And he did.

Fabulous innings. To do that after coming in with the team in trouble is massive. He scored so quickly too, which still gives us 2 and a half days to bowl them out. Imagine SRT getting his 100th century in this game. What an anti climax!

Let me summarise: You don't mind being a tool because Pattinson made a few runs in Melbourne. Fair enough. Nasher said it nicely. Note that I didn't have a problem with any of the other posters who didn't want Hilfy because of how they expressed it .... as an opinion. They weren't arrogant enough to believe that they knew best.

Not necessarily. You appear to be wrong at this early stage, but there is still a lot of time for you to be correct on both counts.

Our tail did well in Melbourne. It is still fairly weak if Siddle is batting at number 8 because he is just an honest batsman as a bowler. At least he puts a price on his wicket. That Pattinson appears to be a better batsman than Siddle is great for the balance of the side. He should be someone who averages in the vicinity of 25 over his career, which isn't bad for number 8. For balance you need a number 8 that is capable of making 100 if it all comes together. We had one and now we have one, but I'd be surprised if it was Sidds. I'm happy with that, but I'm also prepared to wait and see how much of an issue it is in the future. I'm happy to make fun of your comments about Hilfenhaus because they were ridiculous. Whether he performed in the Test or not, they were still ridiculous. The idea of saying that the selectors were stupid because of what you remember a year ago versus the selectors watching him play and speaking to batsmen who have faced him etc. etc. is ridiculous. You could have said that you were surprised with his selection based on his previous form, but you had no idea what happened over the last 12 months, so you had no basis to be so vehemently against the selection. If you waited to watch him bowl then you could have had an informed opinion. That was my point.

He has now.

Faulkner is a good prospect, but he's not at test level yet. He's just not quite there as a batsman or as a bowler yet, but he's well on his way. Certainly his batting has only started to show some form of production this year. Has a career (and season) average of less than 30 with the bat, which isn't good enough for Tests. But he has improved a lot this year and he'll get there eventually. Christian is averaging about 60 with the bat this year, which is why he's being put up as an option. His bowling is handy, and probably not as good as Faulkner, but his batting is clearly better which is why he's there. Probably a poor man's Watson.

Sorry, I'd already read your opinion. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/content/current/story/546544.html In summary, you believe that if he is now bowling like they are saying he is bowling, then you are happy with his selection and that he needs to take wickets to stay in the team. Thank god we have selectors.

Hilfenhaus has been a good bowler for Australia in the past. He lacked penetration against England last series, but before then he has been very good. His series breakdown has been as follows: vs South Africa (away) 2008/09 - 7 wickets at 52.28. vs England (away) 2009 - 22 wickets @ 27.45 vs West Indies (home) 2009/10 - 5 wickets @ 14.00 vs Pakistan (neutral) 2010 - 8 wickets @ 23.75 vs India (away) 2010/11 - 6 wickets @ 43.50 vs England (home) 2010/11 - 7 wickets @ 59.28 Firstly, it shows that he has been a successful bowler for us in the past. In the final series against England, he had an economy rate of 2.62. This was by far the best of the Australian bowlers, with Siddle being next best of the main bowlers at 3.28 rpo. It wasn't that he was bowling badly, he just wasn't penetrating. If he was bowling badly then he would have dumped much earlier. This is reinforced by the fact that he bowled the most overs of any Australian bowler, despite only playing 4 tests. He also had the lowest (behind George who only played one test) economy rate in the Indian tour, bowling the second most overs (82 overs, behind Hauritz's 90 overs). Before these series he has been a very good bowler. But in these two series he lacked penetration, which is what Chris Rogers has been saying about him. He also says that this season he has recovered that pace and penetration, making him a very good bowler. He bowling well in the Shield and, if he's bowling well, then he has demonstrated that he is a capable international bowler. He's a proven bowler who is emerging from a lean patch. He has a massive tank (I hear he runs a 15+ beep) and can bowl many overs a day. Against the top batsmen in the world, we can rely on him to perform a role for our attack and not let the captain down. That's what you want and that's why he's there. Conversely, Starc has shown that he's not yet capable of maintaining pressure for long periods of time. I'd be surprised if Starc played on Boxing Day.

The theory behind winning is the toss is that you compare the score you think you'd make in the 1st innings and compare it to what you think you'd make batting 4th. If you think you'd make more in the 1st innings than the 4th, then you bat. If you think you'd make more in the 4th innings then you'd bowl. You very rarely have a pitch where it's easier to bat in the 4th innings than it is in the first innings. This was one of those rare occasions.

Thanks Nash. I was beginning to worry that I was the problem. At least it made sense outside the bubble.

How is it a difficult concept to grasp? For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment. I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase. I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

That Rhino is a moderator has nothing to do with you being wrong.

I didn't say anything about Johnson's bowling, since we didn't bowl today. I simply made the point that our tail is much longer now that we don't have him at number 8. If he was batting at 8 today (ignoring bowling) then we probably would have won. It is a genuine issue.

The point I'm making is that our tail is very fragile without Johnson. Siddle is an honest batsmen for a bowler, Pattinson and Starc may become that in time and Lyon is a number 11. When you have a 6 and 7 that are struggling then the tail looks exceptionally long. I worry about it for the future, when our bowling line up starts looking like: Pattinson, Cummins, Hazelwood, Lyon. England had the '6 out = all out' problem in the 5-0 Ashes here, and it meant that they played Ashley Giles instead of Panesar. We now have a very long tail. It's an issue without Johnson because he has done well at number 8 for us. He's bowling rubbish, but his absence has resulted in us losing lance in the lower half of our batting order. 15 runs from him today would have won us the match.

Mitchell Johnson would have been very handy today.

I thought both Warner and Hughes batted exceptionally well today. Hughes looked really solid from the get go, even against Martin. I think the main reason for this was because he left the ball much better, so he didn't reach for the ball and defended in a far more compact way. Warner showed his worth in being able to shift the game momentum, as the bowlers were not able to completely dictate and instead were forced to employ more defensive fields. And Clarke's captaincy was again excellent and shows great faith in Lyon. I also thought Starc was much better in his pre lunch spell. Didn't get rewarded, but bowled with very good pace.

He played at a ball that was just too wide to play at. That wasn't a technique thing, but rather it was just a bad ball to play at on a seaming deck.

Yes the pitch is green, but we did bowl well, especially Siddle and Pattinson early on. Starc was erratic, but bowled some corkers in between. It will be interesting to see how we bat on this pitch, especially against the new ball.

So you've seen enough at state level to know he's not good enough, but at the same time not enough to know if he's worth a spot? That's nonsensical rubbish and you deserve to be called out for it. I like Warner. Is he good enough? I don't know, but the signs are good. What he does well is go on when he has the chance, which is a great trait for an opener. Guys like Sehwag, Gayle and McCullum are dangerous because they can change the game quickly. It makes the game easier for their batting partner because the bowlers are on the defensive. I'm more than willing to be patient with him, because he seems to be made of stern stuff too. While everyone is very excited about Pattinson and Cummins, I think that it's important to realise that these kids are going to be inconsistent. They'll have good days and bad days. They need a senior workhorse to help them out on the bad days and shoulder the workload. Siddle is perfect for that role. I also thought he bowled well without luck and would surely keep his spot for the moment.

I agree, in part, Nasher. Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish. That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day. I don't have a problem with his dismissal yesterday, though. That's his scoring zone, but he just didn't get over the ball enough. It's one of his great strengths, the cut shot, and his technique means that he can cut balls far closer to him than most batsmen. It's a style you often see at lower levels of cricket. It doesn't make it bad, but it presents a different set of challenges.