World Cup Team - Aussie 11

ForumsSports Talk | 155 posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Based on what we have seen thus far, who do you think will be our best 11 for the World Cup in the West Indies? I'd go with:

1. Hayden
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. M. Clarke
5. Symonds
6. Hussey
7. White
8. S Clarke
9. Lee
10. Bracken
11.McGrath

12th. Johnson / Hogg / Hillfenhaus

I do worry about Lee on those small fast grounds. He could go for millions.

 

Jack,

Ponting loves Lee. He could and probably will go for a zillion but Punter will stick by him.

JJ

 

QUOTE: John J Jones @ Jan 17 2007, 11:26 AM

Jack,

Ponting loves Lee. He could and probably will go for a zillion but Punter will stick by him.

JJ

I know that, but its just about the worst venue for him to play in. If you don't bowl a very tight line over there you get crushed.

 

I am not sold on Hayden yet, and White's bowling lacks a bit. As much as it pains me to say, the selectors love Shane Watson and he gives them the option of playing Hogg.

1. Watson
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Symonds
6. Hussey
7. White
8. Hogg
9. Lee
10. Bracken
11. McGrath

 

beanie,

Is Watson fit enough to play every game under tough conditions? I like the idea of him opening but he's such a frail prick that you can't have any confidence in him.

I reckon Hogg bowls too many loose balls to be an asset on the small grounds, so I would have Clrake in ahead of him. The fast meduim bowlers (mcgrath and gillespie) have bowled well over there in the past so im banking on a similar style from Clarke will go well also. Symond, Clarke M and White can all bowl the tweakers if required.

 

Bean's side with one change of Clark in for Hogg.

I rate Clark highly, but does he have the guile to adjust his length when blokes will inevitably catch on to his metronomical line and length and get down the wicket to him?

I think Lee and Clark could come under pressure from Hilfy, given his pace has increased to 140 in recent weeks.

I love White's batting and would leave him there, but if Watson isn't there - White's bowling becomes a concern as he is a borderline specialist batsman these days. He chucks genuine pies and would go for thousands on those small grounds.

 

Moe,

White adds lots to the batting at 7 - he and Symonds would be destructive on those small grounds. My guess is that Ponting will think he can get a combined 10 overs out of Clarke, Symonds and White if need be. White is a much better bat than Hogg and better in the field as well. With Hogg for White you drop right off after 6. If Watson was fit he might take the place of one of the 4 quicks and let us bat to 8.

JJ

 

JJJ,

Absolutely. As I said, I rate White's batting abilities very highly. He has proven he can smash it around when required as well as build an innings. Watson lacks the ability to smash it, and needs to bat up the order to be effective.

I'm purely speculating that White's position may be dependent on the availability of Watson to shore up the bowling. Much like MaGill in the tests.

Pigeon, Lee and Bracken would appear to be certainties to at least start the series - which puts alot of pressure on Stuart Clark. Lee can certainly bat though, he will no doubt score some handy runs Bichel style if required.

If you get 30 from Pigeon, Lee and Bracken. You only need to make up 20 from Watson, Clarke, Symonds and White which is fine. Especially given that Roy bowls two varieties of darts.

 

Not sure on Watson's fitness, but I know he was going to be available for WC.
I reckon he needs to play a few VB games to come into consideration, but the selectors love him, so maybe a spot in the 15.
Once they get over there, he will be given every chance to show some form.

As said by others, Clark needs to learn to adjust his length and pace. What is an asset in test cricket, can become a liability in the one day game.

If Watson doesn't go, maybe Hodge will go as the spare bat, with Hogg, Hilfy and Johnson as bowlers. All barring injuries.

Can't pick a spare keeper in a 15 man squad, so a big workload for Gilly. He will need a good break in the next few weeks.

 

1. Hayden
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Symonds
6. M Clarke
7. White
8. S Clark
9. Johnson
10. Bracken
11. McGrath

12th. Lee / Hogg / Hillfenhaus

I'd drop Lee - for mine he wont suit the small / fast grounds and will go for plenty

 

QUOTE: St. Andrews @ Jan 17 2007, 05:09 PM

1. Hayden
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Symonds
6. M Clarke
7. White
8. S Clark
9. Johnson
10. Bracken
11. McGrath

12th. Lee / Hogg / Hillfenhaus

I'd drop Lee - for mine he wont suit the small / fast grounds and will go for plenty

Agree with dropping Lee. Tail too long though with Clark at 8. Drop Johnson for another allrounder...Hogg?...there has to be a better option out there.

I only post here when the other site gets quiet...

 

QUOTE: mrdenn1s @ Jan 17 2007, 05:11 PM

Agree with dropping Lee. Tail too long though with Clark at 8. Drop Johnson for another allrounder...Hogg?...there has to be a better option out there.

My Top7 is all that will be needed wink.gif

Clark can smack a few - you have a short memory from the recent Test series

 

If I jump in here and defend Lee, it will be a 'Henry like' backflip.

so...


His average picks him, and I'd pick him.

If he starts going for plenty, you can re-evaluate in the semi's.


Henry

 

Watch out for splinters Lizzie

tongue.gif

Beware of cheap imitations - Especially from the US

 

Watson is as good a bowler as Johnson and bats a 'bit' better too, Johnson is a nothing selection. If you're concerned by Lee going for plenty, then you should be horrified by Mitch.

 

Moe

What is it that you have against Johnson ?


Your're not related to Watson are you ?

 

What is it that you have against Johnson ?

Nothing, I just don't think he's any good. He has this 'potential' thing people keep referring to, but in 2 years he has already lost a few yards of pace, has shortened his run and looks like an amputee approaching the crease and simply sends down half baked Four'n'20's.

Your're not related to Watson are you ?

Nope, we are barely on speaking terms. We were best mates at school but had a falling out late in Year 12 and besides his mother forcing him to invite me to his 21st I've barely spoken to him since. I played plenty of cricket with Watto and Clarke at junior level and even though I was mates with Watto - I always knew he was a c#nt. Clarke is also a complete c#nt. I have a few mates playing first class cricket still, I'll talk up the blokes who are any good, but not the ones that aren't. Eg. Nathan Hauritz, despite being a champion blokes is a complete Pie Chucker. Chris Hartley on the other hand, mixes being a champion blokes with some serous talent.

 

QUOTE: Moe @ Jan 17 2007, 11:31 PM

Nothing, I just don't think he's any good. He has this 'potential' thing people keep referring to, but in 2 years he has already lost a few yards of pace, has shortened his run and looks like an amputee approaching the crease and simply sends down half baked Four'n'20's.

I'll remember that post...I reckon he's a great talent - at least he also doesn't sprout off like Watson in the media. rolleyes.gif

Watson for mine is going to have a serious question mark next to his name from now on - dodgy hammies are a concern...

 

Johnson's back injury robbed him of five yards' pace. He is reinventing himself at present - he's been told he needs to be consistently in the right areas and he's working on that. Coupled with the ability to swing the ball and attain mid-140s occasionally, he'll be useful.

If he can do all that and work back a few kmh into the mix, he'll realise that potential.

I watched Tait last night against WA. That bloke is still capable of ripping the guts out of a quality batting line up. But he's still as capable as ever of going badly wrong. I hope he comes good.

 

Watson for mine is going to have a serious question mark next to his name from now on - dodgy hammies are a concern...

Problem is, he'll probably not do another hammy. Next time it will be a quad or a calf, or his back again.

His only consistent injury since I've known him has been his back. The shoulder injury was a freak accident, and the hammy was the first soft tissue injury I can recall him suffering. His back is the real problem.

One hamstring niggle, then a relapse when trying to come back too early doesn't = dodgy hammies.

Peanuts,

YOu're exactly right. 2 years ago he was lightening quick, now he is medium fast, and at this stage he doesn't get it in the right areas at his current pace.

Tait and Dizzy looked good in the Domestic game against WA. Good to see Eddo grab a few wickets, another bloke who was very sharp prior to back injury. He bowled some great late swinging yorkers.

 

QUOTE: Moe @ Jan 18 2007, 10:12 AM

Problem is, he'll probably not do another hammy. Next time it will be a quad or a calf, or his back again.

His only consistent injury since I've known him has been his back. The shoulder injury was a freak accident, and the hammy was the first soft tissue injury I can recall him suffering. His back is the real problem.

One hamstring niggle, then a relapse when trying to come back too early doesn't = dodgy hammies.

Moe

Issues with hammies more often than not can be back related + once you've done one there's every chance you can do another one.

How long since he last played ? Recuperation sure is taking a while...

 

QUOTE: St. Andrews @ Jan 18 2007, 10:29 AM

Moe

Issues with hammies more often than not can be back related + once you've done one there's every chance you can do another one.

How long since he last played ? Recuperation sure is taking a while...

Just before the first test (mid Nov) - recall he did well at the Champions Trophy.

 

peanuts

he returned for a one-dayer and then went out again - how long ago now ?

Fair point - IF FIT - who would you rather in the side Watson or Lee ?

 

QUOTE: St. Andrews @ Jan 18 2007, 11:00 AM

peanuts

he returned for a one-dayer and then went out again - how long ago now ?

You've got google haven't you mate? wink.gif

 

peanuts

My point being since mid November he's been out - that's 8 weeks...I didn't think his hammy was supposed to be that serious ?

Next page

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ForumsSports Talk