« County Cricket - this week's fixtures | Main | Should England stick with Nixon? »
Australia name new central squad
The Aussies
have never been the types to dwell on the end of empire, and so it was
yesterday. Andrew Hilditch, the Chairman of selectors, announced a new
squad with a haste that is worrying for all who hoped they may be a bit
stumped following the key retirements of Warne, Langer, McGrath and Martyn. However, it would seem that they have it all pretty much sorted.
Stuart MacGill will replace Shane Warne, and let's face it MacGill would have walked into any other international team in the last 10 years, even with that stupid blue hair he once sported. He will be backed up by young star Cullen Bailey, who has such star admirers as Terry Jenner and Richie Benaud. [image: Getty]
Bracken and Clark will no doubt form the new McGrath/Gillespie axis of stingyness and accuracy; Phil Jacques and the impressive Chris Rogers will battle it out for Langer's spot.
Perhaps the only real surprise is that Jason Gillespie has kept his contract, but in a time of much change the selectors have probably decided that keeping an old head in reserve will be no bad thing. (On a personal and totally unrelated note, Gillespie is responsible for my favourite ever headline, "Aussie Wizzy DIzzy Gets Them In A Tizzy" following his 7-37 against England at Headingley in 1997.)
So on the face of it I imagine that their next test team will look something like this: Hayden, Jacques, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Symonds, MacGill, Lee, Bracken, Clark, Tait.
Rumours of their demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Squad: Cullen Bailey (SA), Nathan Bracken (NSW), Stuart Clark (NSW), Michael Clarke (NSW), Daniel Cullen (SA), Adam Gilchrist (WA), Jason Gillespie (SA), Brad Haddin (NSW), Matthew Hayden (Qld), Ben Hilfenhaus (Tas), Brad Hodge (Vic), Brad Hogg (WA), James Hopes (Qld), Michael Hussey (WA), Phil Jaques (NSW), Mitchell Johnson (Qld), Brett Lee (NSW), Stuart MacGill (NSW), Ricky Ponting (Tas), Chris Rogers (WA), Andrew Symonds (Qld), Shaun Tait (SA), Adam Voges (WA), Shane Watson (Qld), Cameron White (Vic)
May 2, 2007 in Australian cricket, News Pavilion | Permalink | 
Stumble It!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfcfe53ef00d83533496869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Australia name new central squad:
Comments
I don't know who the author is but I know this. They are lazy and incompetent. Or maybe sleep deprived.
Stuart Magill with blue hair. You have him confused with another spinner who wasn't from NSW and didn't bowl over the wrist. I'm not telling you who it was. Do some research. If you even knew the tiniest inkling about the type of man that Stuey is, you would have known better.
The Test team is way off. The fact that it contains no wicketkeeper requires me to make no further comment. It would just embarrass you further. But read this. it is way off the mark.
Second time here. Feel the same as the first. Very disappointed in the quality. My 12 year old daughter has more respect for herself and her readers. Get your act together. This sloppy crap just makes you look foolish and stupid.
T
Posted by: nesta | 2 May 2007 19:31:05
I hold my hands up. Blue hair guy was Colin Miller, my thoughts were jiggered as Stuart MacGill dyed his hair red when he was over in England for a short period. No excuse I know, but there you go. Not sure how that fits in with "the kind of man Stuey is" but it is the case none the less.
As for the wicketkeeper thing; I am minded of the time when Stuart Pearce got his first management job and presented his wife with his first team sheet for her opinion, only to be told he had forgotten to put a goalkeeper in his starting eleven. Sad, but true.
Apart from swapping Gilchrist into the test team in place of Tait/Lee, I stick by it. Time will tell on that one I suppose.
As for being "very disappointed" with the quality, then so be it, plenty of people aren't and we are getting more and more readers every day so we're doing something right. This a 10 post a day, light-hearted look at cricket; if you want something different I suggest you look elsewhere. But there is no excuse for silly mistakes and I fully accept your criticism.
Your 12 year-old doesn't fancy a proof-reading job does she? And you spelled MacGill incorrectly by the way.
Posted by: lee | 2 May 2007 20:45:58
and anyway, what's more important: remembering to put a wicketkeeper in a cricket team or remembering Sun headlines about Jason Gillespie from 10 years ago? Eh? Oh...
Posted by: lee | 2 May 2007 21:04:55
You misspelled Jaques :)
I actually think Rogers is more likely to come in ahead of Jaques. His technique is better, and his form has been simply astounding.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Jaques, and this will all depend on how well they both make the transition to international cricket, but my money is on Rogers making the leap first, then Jaques coming in whenever the hell Hayden retires.
I also don't think we'll see Tait in the test teams for a while. Perhaps if Lee wasn't there, or if Lee starts to become a bit more economical, but the two of them isn't such a great bet. At least Lee can bowl longer spells, Tait just doesn't seem up to that at the moment.
The selectors also don't seem so convinced by Bracken's Test form, for all his prowess as an ODI bowler.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Australia play around with the bowling lineup to try and give Mitchell Johnson a go, in which case they may try some experiments like:
Lee, Clark, MacGill, Gillespie, Johnson
Lee, Clark, MacGill, Gillespie, Bracken
along with the bowling lineup you've mentioned as one of the experiments. I imagine that's why Gillespie has been named, to allow the selectors to experiment a bit more with some wiser heads still around.
It will be interesting to see how MacGill goes through this phase of his career. I was listening to Ian Chappell talk at one point on the radio, and he came out and said bluntly that MacGill wasn't popular with the rest of the players, and that's why the selectors were reluctant to bowl him in tandem with Warne.
It will also be interesting to see how well Lee goes from now on in Test matches. There have always been a few question marks about his Test bowling, and I don't think he's answered those happily. He'll be losing pace over the next two years.
And what about Watson? Everyone seems to love him... but is there really a place for Watson and Symonds in the Test teams?
Posted by: loofer | 2 May 2007 23:55:41
I don't think there is a place for either Symonds or Watson in the test team. Sure Roy made a ton but Clarke did a lot more than that in his first year and he still had to fight for his place in the team. The answer is Brad Hodge, he should bat at no. 4 effectively replacing Martyn, with Hussey at 5 and Clarke at 6. And unless we are predicting his retirement (?) Gilchrist will bat at 7.
As for Jason Gillespie, I can't help but wonder how Cricket Australia justified that decision. I love the Dizz as much as anyone but it is pointless to give him a contract and then not play him for the next 12 months. He hasn't played a test match for over a year, and even he said that CA only renewed his last contract because he made the double ton against the Bangys and they would have looked like asses had they dropped him. I get the feeling Cricket Australia don't want him but they don't want anyone else to have him either.
Posted by: mel | 3 May 2007 01:11:59
Personally I thought Symonds did enough at the back end of the Ashes to give him another chance in the test team.
Posted by: lee | 3 May 2007 07:55:28
Yeah, it seems clear Symonds is going to get another year in the Test team, and I don't think it's such a bad thing. He's knuckled down a few times, and his batting technique seems to have improved.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see Gillespie given a trot. He bowled awesomely last domestic season, and experience does count. I watched a couple of matches last season, and he seemed to have rediscovered that zip that was completely missing in the 2005 Ashes.
The more I think about it, the more Lee's position must be a lot more tenuous than it used to be. He didn't really do it for me in the Ashes, but perhaps if he learns some more control over his swing he can convince me a bit more. I'm still concerned that he rarely seems to out-think opposing batsmen, and his bounce is often too predictable.
Posted by: loofer | 3 May 2007 10:43:04
Leave the Aussie team alone.........
look at history especially the recent stuff, there will be minimal changes, why change a winning team.
McGrath v Watson
McG got the ball to do just enough to beat the middle of the bat both ways and because he he could put it on a spot he got wickets.
Watson bowls faster, ho ho ho.
Watson v Symonds
Only one should play in the ideal lineup, Symonds is the incumbent and there is no argument, continuity please. Watson take a vacation.
Gillespie - Still good enough to be a reserve - no argument.
Gilchrist is going nowhere - wicketkeeper.
Australia have a very long summer coming up starting with the farce that will be Zimbabwe, there will be fallout here with the Australian Govt playing it's cards, the aussie squad was predictable.
Bradd Hogg - don't write him off the test squad yet, MacGill will not tour Zimbabwe if it happens and may not play again for the Baggy Green.
Hussey may well be the opener with Hayden yet so keep your Jacques to yourself for now.
Posted by: Aussieoioioi | 13 May 2007 00:22:24
The comments to this entry are closed.
