England v Australia 2009 / News
- England v Australia home
- |
- News
- |
- Features
- |
- Photos
- |
- Fixtures
- |
- Results
- |
- Squads
- |
- Grounds
- |
- Tour Stats
- |
- Records
- |
- History
- |
- Download Fixtures
- |
- Venue Guide
|
Ashes 2009
Australia squad selection ridiculous - Chappell
Cricinfo staff
July 5, 2009
|
||
|
Related Links
Series/Tournaments:
Australia tour of England and Scotland
|
||
Ian Chappell believes Australia have picked a "ridiculous" Ashes squad and it would be "nonsense" to rely on part-time spinners during the series. Chappell, who captained the 1972 and 1975 touring squads, has tipped England to prevail in the five-match contest, a prediction backed by the former England captain Tony Greig.
"If you're looking for clues as to who might win, I always look at the bowling attacks," Chappell told Cricinfo. "Generally you can go with the team with the best attack. At the moment England certainly have got it.
"A bit will depend on [Andrew] Flintoff and his fitness, but if he's fit and can stand up for all five Tests then England have definitely got the better attack, and a better balanced attack. On that basis I would have them slight favourites."
Greig, who played in 21 Ashes Tests, said he was not convinced the Australian batsmen could handle the England bowlers if they swung the ball like they did in 2005. "I'd go for England, but only by a whisker," he said. "There's always so much tension around the first Ashes Test so temperament could play a very important part."
A four-man pace brigade is a strong possibility for Australia following the disappointing early performances of the offspinner Nathan Hauritz and Chappell said the balance of the side was the biggest concern going into the first Test in Cardiff on Wednesday. "I just don't believe part-time spinners can do the job for you," he said, as Australia consider the merits of using Marcus North, Michael Clarke and Simon Katich instead of Hauritz.
"They should have learned the lesson after what they tried in India and that was an abject failure. You might get away with it on occasions. You shouldn't win Test matches against decent cricket teams relying on part-time spinners. The selectors have made an absolute nonsense of what they've done with spinners." Chappell would prefer Australia to play three fast men and a slow bowler.
He also said it was a mistake not having a specialist top-order batsman in the squad, especially with Phillip Hughes' early-tour problems. "I thought it was ridiculous," he said. "Certainly not going with a third opening batsman is just asking for trouble. There seems to be this widespread feeling that Hughes is fine, he's going to be a star. Well, he's only played three Tests. He's got a very unorthodox technique that could come unglued at any time. If it happens to be a wet summer in England he could be in a bit of trouble."
For their complete views, listen to the Tony Greig Show and Ian Chappell's Ashes preview
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
Who is the best footballer in Europe?
Debate now on the new ESPN Soccernet Castrol Rankings Blog
FREE Cricket DVD offer at Cricshop
Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store
Rugby Union Autumn Internationals coverage
on www.scrum.com
it now seems a talking game..........but even Mr. Chappel does not really know who will win the series.... the team that play better with good temperament will win convincingly.....but there is nothing "ridiculous" about the team. .
Posted by Rusty_1 on (July 07 2009, 09:23 AM GMT)All this talk of Hughes not handling the pressure and folding & who would replace him? Simple - Michael Hussey moves up to open - which he has done for the majority of his career. Who replaces him? His brother, just down thge road happily scoring plenty of runs in English conditions. Oh.. & he also bowls some hand part time spin as a plus, not devestating tho I admit!
Posted by Pea_81 on (July 07 2009, 03:11 AM GMT)I think Australia's lack of batting in the squad is the main problem. They have only SIX top order batsmen!! To defend that the selectors are looking at the fact that Haddin can certainly hold his own and Mitchell Johnson is being called an all-rounder these days. These two cannot and should not be thought of as having to score a lot of runs to bolster up the batting. Eg. If there is an injury to the top order, you can't seriousy expect Haddin to bat at six and johnson at seven. In the case of an injury, or even poor form, what will Australia do? I suppose they're hoping that Watson will be fit enough to play (Not very likely given his track record when he's actually in the side). Even if fit, will he perform well enough wth the bat and the ball? I just don't think Australia have enough batting on the tour!! A last minue call to Chris Rogers for Brett Lee maybe (Please)?
Posted by Bottom on (July 07 2009, 00:03 AM GMT)158 - perhaps I stand corrected in that case. I have seen Broad bat and admit he looked quite handy. Not sure about being as good as Johnson but we'll see over 5 tests! Agreed that without Harmison and co bringing up the rear in batting Eng can't really do any worse in the tail. The thing with Lee going out is that Aus now only really bats to 8: unless Hauritz gets a go as he can hold his own, with the bat. Thankfully it wasn't a batsman that went down for Aus as selectors have neglected to get a spare over there (yes I realise that's Watson but he doesn't count as noone ever expects him to be free of injury). Hopefully Hilfenhaus gets a go and then there's 2 blokes who can bowl all day.
Posted by CustomKid on (July 07 2009, 00:02 AM GMT)Don't get me wrong I love Ian Chappelle as a player and commentator on all things cricket. He's an out and out champion of the game. Rather than right them off Chappellie, give some insights in to who you may have picked in the touring side if this one is so bad. From what I can see we have the best on the deck at present. Spin options are McGain, Kreija, or Casson. Are any of those more destructive than Hauritz? Roy in for Watson as the all rounder? As much as I love Roy he's got to many head issues and is simply too distracting for the new age cricket which is sad. Do we really need an allrounder? We've been obsessed since 2005. Freddy isnt that good - ave 30 with both bat and ball - wow. Openers or back up batsman - Hodge - forget it too old. Jacques is injured again, D Hussey ODI form less than convincing, Rogers is the unloved red head of the Austalian cricketing family but I'd probably have him as back up. Other than that I think we have the best touring team we can pick
Posted by elsieb66 on (July 06 2009, 22:11 PM GMT)I think Hauritz is a total waste of space. You could select KREJZA.... hello SELECTORS???!! The only thing that might save us in this series is the fact that we bat so deep down the order. I think England have a better bowling attack than they are being given credit for, particularly given the conditions and if (if? when more like) they get the ball to reverse swing, we're in deep doo-doo. Our batsmen are largely out of form, and Hughes is going to get peppered with the short balls he has already shown he's not keen on. Mentally, we're not great and England are picking up on that already. It's going to be pretty close, but I think England might just take it. Which will really hack me off.
Posted by VinDoshi on (July 06 2009, 15:38 PM GMT)Australia's bowling attack is undoubtedly weak. Mitchell Johnson -- although he's quick -- is highly overrated, Brett Lee lost his form eons ago, and Nathan Hauritz, at best, is an average, club-grade spinner. Their only saving grace will be Stuart Clark, if he plays. England will win the Ashes this time around. There's no doubt about that in my mind!
Posted by BiggerAl66 on (July 06 2009, 14:14 PM GMT)Although I am an England supporter, I take Australia to win 3-1. People seem to doubt Hughes as an opening bat, but he is a huge talent and I think he will be the star of the series. Regarding the bowling, I think Australia should pick the 4 pace bowlers, despite Lee being injured, and rely on Clarke and Katich for a few overs. They won't want to bowl Katich too much as it could adversely affect his batting. I think England should (and will) play Swann, but I would be a little nervous playing Broad as a number 7. I don't think he is quite ready or good enough to play there in an Ashes series, although if Freddie is fit, that won't be a problem.
Posted by funkybluesman on (July 06 2009, 13:48 PM GMT)What a load of rubbish about Hughes, "If it happens to be a wet summer in England he could be in a bit of trouble". What a joke. He clearly hasn't paid much attention to Hughes career. England can bounce him at their peril. South Africa had exactly the same idea and he finished the series averaging nearly 70! And as for the "wet summer" comment, claiming his technique can't deal with difficult batting conditions, this is the guy who was in the NSW team that was bowled out for 172 and 173 in their two innings of a match in Tasmania last season, where the batting conditions were difficult for everyone, and he got something like 97 and 108 out of those two innings. His technique may be unorthadox, but so many of the greatest batsman of all time have been also! Unorthadox means nothing, and come the end of the ashes when he's scored over 500 runs in the series, he will have clearly demonstrated that!
Posted by shishirqatar on (July 06 2009, 13:48 PM GMT)This ASHES i feel, Australians are not favourites merely because they are not a balanced side.They should go with 3 fast bowlers and 1 genuine spinner. They cannot rely on part timers to win matches for you. But i do not degrade the Australian team, it would be a good contest. It won't be easy for the English team to win the Ashes.