Nasher

You'd bet your house on Watson making a 50 and not going on with it. Still, i'll happily settle for an opener that consistently scores 50s, which Watson clearly does. Have I mentioned that I love Mike Hussey?

Mitch switched on with the bat. Could this mean he's also going to be switched on with the ball? Let's bloody well hope so, because otherwise there's no reason to keep watching/following this Test. Also, I love Mike Hussey. Wish he'd gone on though.

I don't quite follow why you've got it in for Hilfenhaus but can't understand why Siddle is in the gun. I think your judgement has been clouded by one handy innings and a Victorian bias. In my eyes, both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are pie chuckers (at the moment, anyway) and both will get raped and pillaged by the pommy bats. It doesn't really matter which one you pick. Either way, it is all a bit ho-hum. Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson - who cares, can't see any combination of those blokes taking 20 wickets, especially when coupled with Harris and the obscure Beer.

That sounds like it might be worth keeping an eye on. Cripes, I'm dreading this next Ashes Test. Reminds me of the feeling of seeing Geelong coming up on the draw circa 2008; where not watching doesn't feel right, so all you can do is brace yourself because you know it's going to hurt. Urgh.

Yeah, there was a Dean Jones written article in The Age yesterday about the same era, saying the same thing.

AoB's post made me rethink my position too. If you take it for a given that these Ashes are gone, then he's absolutely spot on: cut our losses and start formulating a side ready to get the bloody things back next time. With a moment of quiet reflection, I agree that that's what's in order. I don't think our current side is in any condition to salvage these ones. The Poms batsmen and Anderson are just too red hot and this is the worst Australian Test side I've ever seen (too young to remember the early-mid 80s). I'm not normally a fan of flying the white flag (and I can hear WYL turning in his UFO as he hurtles towards this thread), but I think one has to recognise when one is in a completely hopeless situation and act accordingly. I guess the sticking point is whether or not you believe these Ashes are already lost or not.

Speaking of Chappelli and Greig: I watched a game of cricket from 1984 (I was born in late '83) on Fox a few days ago, and the first thing I observed that the commentary team was Chappell, Greig, Lawry and Benaud. Commenting on the Cricket is clearly not a gig one relinquishes readily. I've spent my whole life listening to the same commentary team. Anyway, not much to do with this Test, but it is the general cricket thread!

I don't know that I can be bothered writing a thesis on this like everyone else, because I think the selections speak for themselves. I probably would've selected David Hussey instead of Smith and I know nothing about this Beer bloke, but really, none of this impacts on the main point: We are going to get completely rogered in this Test. I don't think any other combinations of average players would change that.

If I were an English selector I wouldn't care about that. Since the first innings of the first Test, the Australians have shown that, they are completely incapable of getting anywhere near the English tail. I'd be backing the batsmen in and just picking the next best bowler.

Isn't it obvious 45? He's supposed tolead the side from the sidelines.

Ryan Harris is currently the best bowler in the country.

Heard a rumour that Hilfenhaus's omission from the side is considered permanent. The rumour goes that Greg Chappell believes Hilfenhaus has had an extended run in the side, and has proven that he is unable to take enough wickets at Test level, and therefore will not be considered for future Tests. Source is only of moderate credibility, so take this with all appropriate grains of salt.

Not real good apparently, gone for 2. Three wickets for two runs. Won't make double figures at this rate.

Katich out without facing a ball, Ponting out for a golden duck. Cracking start that

I didn't see the play today, but the stats don't support your assertion on Hilfenhaus bowling rubbish (most economical of the full time bowlers). Can I get a second opinion? Rhino, HT? On Johnson, what you're describing is pretty much how he's always bowled. I've always found it incredible with the number of wickets he gets with a nothing ball a foot outside off. His biggest weapon has always been deceit by pace rather than consistent line and length. Against real quality opposition, if he's not at his 100% best then I think he's always going to look dreadful.

The Australian selectors have been showing for years that they are willing to persevere with their best players and back them in to find form, regardless of what every mug in Australia thinks (including many ex-players). Think back to Mark Taylor's run on the way up to retirement, with many other examples since. They have been more than vindicated with their decision here. Hussey (and Haddin who I didn't want in - how embarrassing) has stood up in a massive way when the team needed him most. I couldn't be more happy for him. And you'll find that a lot of big innings are built on the back of some good fortune early in the innings, and there are a lot of innings that end prematurely on the back of some damn rotten luck; that's just the nature of the game. It could just have easily have been Ponting saluting the crowd as he walked off, if it wasn't for a damn unlucky nick down the leg side. The only thing that goes down in history is the final score.

Contracted players play where and when they're told. Even so, as a professional cricketer he's hardly going to turn down the opportunity to play, especially when he's busy trying to get selected for the test side.

Is Andrew McDonald a good enough to be test batsman in his own right, or is this just Victorian parochialism speaking? (Genuine question, despite the fact that I couldn't resist the backhander ) Any time I see his name tossed up my first thought it always "surely this isn't the best we've got?" - however I freely admit I have not been following his recent form. I don't believe in selecting all-rounders unless they're first rate with one or the other. As well as injury, this was always my concern with Watson, however now there's no doubt whatsoever (over his batting at least - he still chucks a few to many pies with the ball).

Un. Frigging. Believable.

He plays one every couple of years.

Hehe, you wouldn't be championing his selection if he wasn't Victorian! I just get the impression White's not on the Australian selectors' radar, that's all.

There is absolutely zero chance of Cameron White ever holding a permanent test spot. Rightly or wrongly he's been stereotyped and discarded for tests just like the likes of Michael Bevan and Nathan Bracken were. There's three possibilities contingent on Hussey going. Until Hussey is gone which is surely on the horizon (next two or so years), the status quo will remain -- Hughes, Smith and co will fill gaps as they appear, but the core team will remain constant. Once Hussey is out the door, the three possibilities I see, in likelihood order are: 1. Hughes to open, Watson to go down the order, Smith to remain on the fringe. I hate the idea of breaking up Watson and Katich from the opening partnership and I'm sure the selectors will too, however I think this is the best way to get all of the best available players in to the side at once. 2. Openers stay as is, Clarke to move to 4, Hughes in the middler order (5 or 6). Hughes is an opener, but this has worked in the past with the likes of Hussey, who was a permanent shield opener before finally getting the nod. Nobody seems to be a fan of this option, but I am. 3. Smith in to the middle order (6), Hughes to remain on the fringe (biding time until Katich is in the gun, not yet on the horizon). Smith is a good bat and a good bowler -- is he/can he be elite with either? Hughes is a pretty safe bet for being a fantastic test batsman for years to come. I'd prefer to go with the near-sure thing, rather than hedging my bets with Smith. North's century changed the entire equation, really. The selectors showed an enormous amount of faith in him by bringing him to NZ despite a woeful summer. They're not going to drop him now that he has finally paid back what he owed them.

I guess the point boils down to the fact that you can still win a test match even if you struggle to make a lot of runs, but you can't possibly win a test match if you can't take 20 wickets.

A mate at work made an interesting comment today, in that all the 'great' sides of the past all have one thing in common; they have a plethora of great bowlers. WI in the 80s and Aus in the 90s/early 00s are examples of this, but both those sides also had a bunch of great batsmen so it's a bit inconclusive. If you believe these sentiments (and it's of course very debateable) then you'd have to say that as long as we've got a middle of the road bowling attack, then we're no certainties to win any series, especially against the stronger nations. It doesn't matter how strong our batting lineup is.

Yes, that's very annoying.