SA Footy

With the tour of India and England coming up who do people think our attack should consist of?
We seem to have a lot more candidates for the bowling spots than we do for batting spots.
Which of these bowlers should make the cut for the next tours, we will probably take 5-6 quicks on tour id imagine.
Siddle
MJ
Bird
Pattinson
Starc
Hilf
Cummins
Harris
Hastings
Any others like Richardson, Coulter-Nile, Cutting?

The ones not injured, pick them.

If all fit, Siddle, Cummins and Pattinson are the three of choice.

Hilfy gets in the squad for his variation, Starc is the pick of the rest.

I think in India the attack will consist of two pacemen, two spinners and Shane Watson

I know we don't have a great second spinner but look at England, Panesar wouldn't be in England's best 15-20 bowlers but over in India he becomes a menace.

The other option is to rely on Lyon, Warner and Clarke to get through alot of overs and play the extra batsmen with Wade batting at 8.

Any more than 2 genuine pacemen plus Watson is massive overkill

Considering I think Warner and Clarke have alot of talent with the ball and I expect Watson to bowl alot of overs and bowl well on the low flat decks I would go with as it stands

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Watson
Wade
Siddle
Pattinson/Johnson
Lyon

Siddle
Pattinson/Johnson
Watson
Lyon
Clarke
Warner

I think Pattinson is the best of the lot and Siddle most consistent. Both, if fit, would be first choice. Then I'd have either Johnson or Starc to give the attack some variety, especially if Watson is playing. Very handy having Watson making runs this Test as he is an important cog in the bowling attack.

I don't know whether they'll go 5 pace/2 spinners in the squad or 6 pace/1 spinner. Can almost guarantee they'll need to send over a replacement fast bowler at some point so my 6 would be:

Pattinson
Siddle
Johnson
Bird
Starc
Cummins

If we take six quicks on tour I'd have- Siddle, Pattinson, Starc, Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Bird in the squad.

Siddle, Pattinson and Starc/Johnson would be in my starting eleven.

There's also Harris to consider but maybe the selectors will look past him because he is a bit older and of being out of the game for so long through injury?

whufc wrote:I know we don't have a great second spinner but look at England, Panesar wouldn't be in England's best 15-20 bowlers but over in India he becomes a menace.

Yes, he would easily be in their top 15-20 - he had 53 wickets @ 23 in the 2012 County season - we don't have any spinners performing anything like that in first class cricket.

2012-13 Shield leading wicket-takers

The top 21 are all pace bowlers then:

O'Keefe 9 wickets @ 34
Hauritz 9 wickets @ 38
Beer 8 wickets @ 46

How many more games did he play in a County season to get those wickets?

johnson's in my first test side now. Have to put siddle and probably pattinson in as well. Only need 1 spinner with Warner and clarke nearly as good as anything else going around. I'd take Starc for sure and would love cummins but don't see that happening. Don't rate hilfenhaus to be honest but he probably goes anyway. I'd take bird and either hazlewood or coulter nile.

After watching ind vs eng series there is absolutely no point having 3 pacemen especially if Clarke, Warner and Watson are going to bowl, you might as well have the extra batsmen, at one point in that series both sides were going to go in with one pacemen due to the zero assistance for them

I understand that, but Clarke is quite possibly the second best spinner we have. Warner could well be the best wrist spinner we have. I don't see the point in picking another spinner to bowl the same (or worse) as the 3 spin options we have. I've always felt that the harder it is to bowl seamers, the more you want so they have the option of really bustling in for short bursts and use athleticism and pace to counter lack of pitch assistance.

Grahaml wrote:I understand that, but Clarke is quite possibly the second best spinner we have. Warner could well be the best wrist spinner we have. I don't see the point in picking another spinner to bowl the same (or worse) as the 3 spin options we have. I've always felt that the harder it is to bowl seamers, the more you want so they have the option of really bustling in for short bursts and use athleticism and pace to counter lack of pitch assistance.

True, I'm thinking if we are going to bowl Lyon, Warner and Clarke for long spells(which I would be happy with) I would rather us only play 2 seamers especially if Watson is playing and then have the extra batting option with Wade at 8.

Something like

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Siddle
Lyon

I think Watto is wasted as a bowling all rounder batting 7 or 8. If he's that low in the order just pick a specialist bowler in his place and back in your top 6 bats plus Wade. Why do we need so many batsman? This was tried before with both Michael Bevan and S Waugh playing as the number 7 bat and specialist bowler and I don't think it worked. They were wasted as batsman that liw in the order as they did not get enough time to build a decent innings. Both later said they became confused about their roles in the team given they were batsman first, bowlers second.

In Bevan's case he was a genuine part timer by his own admission. I'd put Warner and Clarke in the same boat. I think when given short spells at the right times they can give the impression that they are more effective at test level than they really are and this would only become apparent when we need to rely on them as a front line bowler. Bevan felt he suddenly needed to practice his bowling more and his batting then suffered as a result.

Ecky wrote:

whufc wrote:I know we don't have a great second spinner but look at England, Panesar wouldn't be in England's best 15-20 bowlers but over in India he becomes a menace.

Yes, he would easily be in their top 15-20 - he had 53 wickets @ 23 in the 2012 County season - we don't have any spinners performing anything like that in first class cricket.

2012-13 Shield leading wicket-takers

The top 21 are all pace bowlers then:

O'Keefe 9 wickets @ 34
Hauritz 9 wickets @ 38
Beer 8 wickets @ 46

Adam Zampa 5 wickets @9.40


20 years old , and is an extremely talented leg spinner
Has also taken 4 wickets @16 in the BBL , and had some dropped catches and at least one stumping missed off his bowling
I just hope he is not fast tracked to go to India as it would be too early
Adam has not bowled a long 20 + overs spell too date in First Class cricket, so will need to reserve judgement on his abilty to bowl well in a sustained spell
I have a feeling he might be a 200 wicket Test match spinner for Australia

Hondo wrote:I think Watto is wasted as a bowling all rounder batting 7 or 8. If he's that low in the order just pick a specialist bowler in his place and back in your top 6 bats plus Wade. Why do we need so many batsman? This was tried before with both Michael Bevan and S Waugh playing as the number 7 bat and specialist bowler and I don't think it worked. They were wasted as batsman that liw in the order as they did not get enough time to build a decent innings. Both later said they became confused about their roles in the team given they were batsman first, bowlers second.

In Bevan's case he was a genuine part timer by his own admission. I'd put Warner and Clarke in the same boat. I think when given short spells at the right times they can give the impression that they are more effective at test level than they really are and this would only become apparent when we need to rely on them as a front line bowler. Bevan felt he suddenly needed to practice his bowling more and his batting then suffered as a result.

The reason to play the extra batsmen is if you play 3 seam bowlers on the current Indian pitches u might as well play a player short! The ind vs eng series was proof of this. There is nothing in the pitches for the seamers. You will not win a test in India without posting 400 plus in one of the innings either.

Clarke and Warner are part timers no doubt but Indian pitches have a habit of turning average spinners into world beaters!!

We have been down the path of trying to beat India in India with 3 pacemen IT DOESN'T WORK, if McGrath, Lee, Gillespie couldn't have succes the chances of Siddle, Starc, Johnson and co are next to none

mal wrote:

Ecky wrote:

whufc wrote:I know we don't have a great second spinner but look at England, Panesar wouldn't be in England's best 15-20 bowlers but over in India he becomes a menace.

Yes, he would easily be in their top 15-20 - he had 53 wickets @ 23 in the 2012 County season - we don't have any spinners performing anything like that in first class cricket.

2012-13 Shield leading wicket-takers

The top 21 are all pace bowlers then:

O'Keefe 9 wickets @ 34
Hauritz 9 wickets @ 38
Beer 8 wickets @ 46

Adam Zampa 5 wickets @9.40


20 years old , and is an extremely talented leg spinner
Has also taken 4 wickets @16 in the BBL , and had some dropped catches and at least one stumping missed off his bowling
I just hope he is not fast tracked to go to India as it would be too early
Adam has not bowled a long 20 + overs spell too date in First Class cricket, so will need to reserve judgement on his abilty to bowl well in a sustained spell
I have a feeling he might be a 200 wicket Test match spinner for Australia

he sure does look good Mal, I agree.

pafc1870 wrote:

mal wrote:

Ecky wrote:

whufc wrote:I know we don't have a great second spinner but look at England, Panesar wouldn't be in England's best 15-20 bowlers but over in India he becomes a menace.

Yes, he would easily be in their top 15-20 - he had 53 wickets @ 23 in the 2012 County season - we don't have any spinners performing anything like that in first class cricket.

2012-13 Shield leading wicket-takers

The top 21 are all pace bowlers then:

O'Keefe 9 wickets @ 34
Hauritz 9 wickets @ 38
Beer 8 wickets @ 46

Adam Zampa 5 wickets @9.40


20 years old , and is an extremely talented leg spinner
Has also taken 4 wickets @16 in the BBL , and had some dropped catches and at least one stumping missed off his bowling
I just hope he is not fast tracked to go to India as it would be too early
Adam has not bowled a long 20 + overs spell too date in First Class cricket, so will need to reserve judgement on his abilty to bowl well in a sustained spell
I have a feeling he might be a 200 wicket Test match spinner for Australia

he sure does look good Mal, I agree.

had played one shield match,

NSW v Qld
1st innings: 6 overs, 3/17
2nd innings: 9 overs, 2/30

scored 18 of 22 balls batting at 9 in the second innings

Would you take Zampa over to India even if you have no intention of playing him but to get him around the squad, train and experience the best players of spin in the world.

whufc wrote:Would you take Zampa over to India even if you have no intention of playing him but to get him around the squad, train and experience the best players of spin in the world.

Yes, far better option than Maxwell.
Even O'Keefe would be a better option in India