Durhamfootman wrote:question marks over Mitch2's fitness?
if there are, perhaps they should play him and hope it all works out
Maybe they watched Murtagh and will play stocky medium pacers.
Durhamfootman wrote:question marks over Mitch2's fitness?
if there are, perhaps they should play him and hope it all works out
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Starc was in the squad of 12 which does suggest he's fit to play.
yuppie wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Starc was in the squad of 12 which does suggest he's fit to play.
Or giving him enough time to prove he is fit or he has his lengths right? Arguably harsh on Pattinson though.
In the first test Langer made his selections on the morning of the game. I wonder if that will happen tomorrow as well.
Langer seems to like the control aspect of the game though. Patience and persistence. This explains Siddles inclusion over going for all out attack.
What ever attack Australia goes for i think most Aussie supporters believe that it will do its job. The fear is getting bowled out for 60 and not giving the bowlers a chance to win Australia the game.
yuppie wrote:Hazlewood bowled well last time at lords, and his control with the slope is vital. I think his selection makes sense if he is bowling well. By all accounts he bowled well in the tour game just completed.
Many stories surrounding Starc from an injury risk to not finding his test match length. Either way Australia has decided that Cummins will be their main strike bowler and Lyon will be in the second innings.
With Siddle and Josh it seems Australia are trying to suffocate the english bats. Which makes sense. Australia don't have a 5th bowler in the same way England has, so they need bowlers who can bowl that longer spell. If Starc is carrying a niggle, then its to much of a risk to play him.
Pattinson bowled well in the first innings at Edgbaston but not so well in the second. Siddle bowled with more control and works as a great foil to Lyon. The Australian selectors seem to be looking for balance in their bowling line up. A fully fit and performing Starc would be selected but their are obviously problems there.
Ultimately Australia has 6 bowlers who could do a job for them, it is an embarrassment of riches for them, so hopefully the selectors make the right decisions for each test.
Batting wise it seems to be the opposite. With back up bats of Mitch 3, Labuschagne and Harris, the options are very limited.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Woakes and Broad I suppose. Most of Woakes' threat is with a newer ball.
Return to Live Cricket Matches
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests