Australia in India 2012-13

Bowling line-up a dilemma - Arthur

Brydon Coverdale

February 27, 2013

Comments: 166 | Text size: A | A

Nathan Lyon sends down a delivery, West Indies v Australia, 3rd Test, Roseau, 5th day, April 27, 2012
Nathan Lyon struggled to make an impact in Chennai and returned with figures of 4 for 244 © Associated Press
Related Links

The coach Mickey Arthur has conceded that in hindsight Australia might have made a mistake by not picking two spinners on a Chennai pitch that crumbled as the Test wore on. However, Arthur said that even after the match, it was difficult to assess what difference a twin spin attack would really have made, given that most of Australia's wickets came from pace and Nathan Lyon ended up with match figures of 4 for 244.

The question of whether to include Xavier Doherty as a second spin option for the Hyderabad Test will be one of the major discussion points for Australia's selectors over the next three days. Another will surround the workload of James Pattinson, the most dangerous of the fast bowlers in Chennai, where he finished with six wickets for the match, the first time an Australian fast man had claimed so many in a Test in India since 2004.

The team management are conscious of Pattinson's propensity to break down and having bowled 33 overs in hot conditions in Chennai in his return to international cricket after suffering a rib injury, they will consider the best way to handle him over the four-Test series. Regardless of whether Pattinson plays in Hyderabad, there will be debate over the makeup of the attack, and Arthur said the spin question would not be easy to answer.

"That's going to be the million dollar question," Arthur said. "It's easy in hindsight having a look at how the wicket ended up, you probably would have liked two spinners on there, however, our quicks took most wickets. We didn't get a massive return from spin in this game. I thought James Pattinson was outstanding, so it's a difficult dilemma.

"I think going to Hyderabad we'll have to look at conditions before we make a proper decision. Looking at the way it ended up probably two spinners [would have been good] but our quicks were the most likely out there, so I am not sure which way really."

One thing Doherty would provide if selected is the ability to turn the ball away from the six right-handers that make up India's top and middle order. Monty Panesar was effective in that regard during the Test series in India late last year, although with 596 first-class wickets at 30.22, Panesar has a vastly superior record in the long form to Doherty, who has 122 victims at 44.56 and is not renowned as a big spinner of the ball.

But the vast majority of Lyon's Test wickets have been right-handers - 47 as compared to 18 left-handers - and Arthur said that on difficult pitches turning the ball in to the batsman and making him play was not a bad thing. It remains to be seen whether the Australians decide they need spinners turning the ball both ways.

"I think on wickets like this balls turning into you are just as effective, because you've actually got to play," Arthur said. "You can't leave balls alone. Balls coming into the bat on wickets that have crumbled are almost as tough to play. Ideally you want both, and I did a lot of looking at the England series and they used Panesar a lot.

"You use the left-armer a lot more in the first innings here because you get a lot more control from your left-armer. But when the wickets start breaking up, your off-spinner to the right handers becomes dangerous because you've got to keep playing him all the time. Ideally, it would be nice to have the pigeon pair."

Lyon, Doherty, Arthur and the captain Michael Clarke were all part of a conference on the field after the loss in Chennai where Shane Warne, who is commentating on the series, discussed spin with the group. Some words of advice from Warne would have been especially useful for Lyon, given that Warne also struggled in India during his career. Arthur said the first Test had been a steep learning experience for Lyon.

"I think he has learnt from this game that you have got to be really consistent in conditions like this in order to put the batsmen under any sort of pressure, but I think he will grow and he will learn from this game," Arthur said. "It will be interesting to see how he pulls up after this Test match and in terms of information and preparation and everything he worked extremely hard coming into this Test match. Only he knows how he will approach things if he plays in the next Test match and how that is going to go."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Brydon Coverdale

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (March 1, 2013, 8:11 GMT)

I feel Australia should continue with Lyon in the next test... The pitch in Hyderabad is good for spin.. They should include Doherty In the squad in place of Stark! Stark was awful in the first test, wayward line and left arm round the wicket doesn't help in India... Siddle and Pattinson look good... I'd love to see Watson bowl on Indian pitches.. He can be a useful bowler, but may be, he won't.. Indian openers are not in good form.. I guess, Pattinson will be dangerous early on in the innings.. but i feel, Clarke should use him more! He didn't let him bowl many in the 1st innings in Chennai! (AN INDIAN SPEAKING)

Posted by VivGilchrist on (March 1, 2013, 7:43 GMT)

@Meety, your comments back up my earlier comments. Lets give the coaching role to Boof and let's start moving forward. I also don't understand how Beer and Holland are next in line ....what have they done? OKeefe has 78 wickets at 27. By Australian FC records that is exceptional. He is NOT liked.

Posted by Eightfa on (March 1, 2013, 5:34 GMT)

Australia didn't pick the wrong team. Team just did not perform,starc and Siddle were best bowlers this summer so I don't think anyone saw those performances coming. Only bad selection is wade not in the top 6 bats in Australia and not in the top 4 keepers, Chris Hartley is streets ahead of any keeper in Australia. How good would Australia be going if Hartley had kept for the last 12 months. A win in Adelaide and a spinner with confidence in his keeper if only. The keeper drives the team in setting example in the field wade looks like a club cricketer way out of his depth

Posted by RonchiefBSB on (March 1, 2013, 4:55 GMT)

A few points: - Ashwin was playing on his home ground so his much improved performance from the England series is perhaps not that surprising; - Dhoni was playing at his IPL ground, and launched a t20 style assault on the Aussie bowlers - Lyon was turning and bouncing the ball as much as any of the Indian spinners for much of the test, especially mornings 3 and 4. However he couldn't maintain a consistent fuller length which was required. So long as doherty and the other bowlers can keep the pressure on at the other end, i reckon Lyon will take 10 wickets at Hyderabad.

Posted by zenboomerang on (March 1, 2013, 4:14 GMT)

The problem for Oz cricket is that we only have 6 FC teams, which means that only 6 spinners are likely to be getting a chance to show their wares... On top of this we have injuries to Holland & Beer whom would be short candidates for a Test call up while the leading spinner this summer O'Keefe has recently split the webbing in his hand for the 6th time in his career & will likely need surgery at seasons close... Seems many Oz bowlers have been going through a rough trot recently...

Posted by zenboomerang on (March 1, 2013, 4:11 GMT)

Not sure about Arthurs logic on pace taking most of the wkts - there were 4 seamers to 1 spinner... Starc & Siddle combined bowled exactly the same number of Overs that Lyon did, but only managed 1 wkt between them to Lyons 4 wkts... If anything Moises out bowled Mitch & Pete, putting pressure on both to hold their position against a 2nd spinner...

Posted by Meety on (March 1, 2013, 4:08 GMT)

@@emu1 on (February 27, 2013, 9:02 GMT) -We certainly wouldn't have done our job if we hadn't considered all options available to us," Arthur said. "We felt Xavier had bowled really well in the ODIs and Xavier we felt was probably the next one in line when Michael Beer (West Australian spinner) got injured. "I think we covered all bases in selection. We've looked at all possible bases for a team and we've got all the players here who we think could make a massive difference." - These words of wisdom are direct quotes from Arthus on the SO'K omission. Apart from the fact he doesn't really say why SO'K was not selected, it can be inferred that he/NSP believe that Doherty can make a "massive" difference & O'Keefe cannot. I would suggest if he is looking at "bases" he/Arthurs is in the WRONG sport!

Posted by AidanFX on (March 1, 2013, 2:45 GMT)

Far out 1-0 down - only need to win 2 matches for BG Trophy. "hhm should we rest our most effective bowler in the last who can bowl at express pace and often bowls with an upright seam, who also averages in the low 20s" - Of course it is logical". At least go for broke next two matches and if Aus win those matches- then rest the bloke; seriously this is ridiculous policy that is doing my head in. People watch cricket for these types of players. Did Argus really say - rest the best players, change the continuity of team in important must win games?

Posted by Beertjie on (February 28, 2013, 17:45 GMT)

Well said @Samdanh on (February 28, 2013, 6:56 GMT) Someone even posted afterwards they missed Hilditch! If losing 4-0 to India would lead to selection based on performance allied to recognition of the prevailing conditions under which games are played, I'll take it. It's so damn frustrating listening to Inverarity and Arthur talk up players and then fail to pick them: case in point Haddin. Granted there were injuries to the preferred left armers, Beer and Holland, but Doherty! And how did Smith and Maxwell suddenly deserve consideration? Based on a gut feel? What about the palpably unfair treatment meeted out to Khawaja in comparison to Hughes? So the instances can be multiplied. Sadly I was disappointed but not surprised by what happened at Chennai. Aus might fight back (it's in the genes) but don't kid yourself about being a serious contender either in India or in England if such muddled thinking remains the metier.

Posted by AKS286 on (February 28, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

Xavier poverty, Agar, SO'K, etc all are going to produce same result like Lyon.According to Oz fans Lyon record is better than Monty & swann on paper. OK lets play paper cricket. But the fact is Swanny & Monty bowled BEAUTIFULLY and destroys the master of spin team. If Haddin & Paine are available then why Mathew waste is selected.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 28, 2013, 15:17 GMT)

@SherjilIslam: You mean to say you didn't know Lyon couldn't turn the ball before this tour? I don't understand why this is such a shock to some fans. Standards in spin bowling certainly have fallen off a cliff in Australia the last few years, it's no surprise to outside viewers to see an Aussie spinner do so badly as many said he would, citing a lack of variation, turn and accuracy. Seems that those critics were right after all.

Posted by The_Red_Cherry on (February 28, 2013, 12:49 GMT)

I think having 2 spinners will be playing into the hands of India esp. when they are not of a very high standard. I don't get why everybody's down playing Doherty. This guy bowls with a big heart and inspires more confidence than Lyon. Having said so its the pacers who will have to take the bulk of the wickets. I was disappointed with the way Starc bowled. He hardly adjusted his length to the slow wickets. But I expect him to do better. Johnson needs to be brought in at the expense of Saddle. His experience of bowling in these conditions will help the entire unit. Also Aussies need to make some runs. A 500+ score will give the spinners the confidence to flight the ball and the pacers to pitch the ball up.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (February 28, 2013, 7:41 GMT)

Yeah, good old Aussie politics has stuffed O'Keefe i'd reckon

Posted by Samdanh on (February 28, 2013, 7:05 GMT)

Aus team for 2nd Test should be announced just at the toss: If conditions show the pitch being similar to that in Chennai, then the team should be: Ed Cowan, Warner, Phil Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Maxwell, Wade, Henriques, Johnson, Doherty and Lyon. If the pitch looks hard and assessed to provide good bounce, then Agar should play instead of Doherty, as his height could be handy. Agar also can bat better. Aus team management and board, may I appeal to you to bring Steve O'keefe at least for the last 2 Tests?

Posted by Samdanh on (February 28, 2013, 6:56 GMT)

I had written before and after Aus announced their team for first Test. It was surprising that they they did not learn from experience Eng had in their recent series here. It is one thing to take the right informed decisions in time and quite the other to take decisions little too late. Also, it is quite inexplicable why a country would continue to ignore the best spinner by performance in their recent shield tournament. Does not even one soul in the board, team, team management raise a serious query on this and push for the right decisions? Look at what Henriques has done; while he was selected based on his excellent performance with bat & ball in the same tournament, it is very very disappointing to see a nation like Australia, continuing to ignore Steve O'Keefe who has turned out to be their best spinner. I feel sorry for Aus team, Aus people. They deserve better decisions and directions

Posted by VivGilchrist on (February 28, 2013, 6:26 GMT)

@Meety, everything must be so nice and black or white in your world. Hodge was not liked and neither is OKeefe. Talk to people in the know. Fact.

Posted by SherjilIslam on (February 28, 2013, 5:22 GMT)

I really feel for Lyon.The guy comes to India first time with lot of promise, hope and backing from fans......but was absolutely man-handled by Indians.He tried his level best, but the Indians, specially Dhoni was in such punishing mood that he has to take the beating of all the angst, Dhoni has in him due to recent home losses. Also, Indians gave too much respect to Monty/Swan and allowed them to settle and come hard at Indians.This too must be playing into the mind of Indians when prepared to play against Lyon.And to top it all, there was no other spinner to share the beating. One thing Lyon can learn from this test is to at-least very his pace.He consistently bowls over 90 kmph which makes him predictable,and a bit too fast to actually spin the ball.

Posted by soumyas on (February 28, 2013, 5:01 GMT)

msg to aussies: it is going to be only spin, spin, spin in bring all types of spinners next time. but for next Test, play min 2 spinners and a spin allrounder... if u don't have new spinners even shane warne, brad hogg can do much better on indian pitches than your best fast bowlers... only 2 fast bowlers shud be pattison and Starc .

Posted by V-Man_ on (February 28, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

Australia needs another review to see if the previous review has been implemented properly. I really haven't seen much improvement from the previous selection panel. They need AB and Taylor who are capable of giving tough love to players.

Posted by ajaygodbole on (February 28, 2013, 4:47 GMT)

Even if you compare all the available spinners to Australia they are no where near to Paneasr-Swann combination. Australia should drop siddle or starc and bring in Mitch or Maxwell. In the current Australian squad only Michael Clarke can play good quality spin in Indian conditions. Henriques did played well but that was just his first match. I would replace Hughes with Khwaja. Can anybody tell me if Marcus North, Simon Katich are still playing?

Posted by   on (February 28, 2013, 4:16 GMT)

@smashingbaby- well said. The batting lost the match- why is everyone getting so bent about Lyon. Two spinners would have given india one additional person to go after. I think australia picked to their advantage- the difference was the players not performing.

India:For the next test I would love to see Ishant give way to Irfan or RP Singh and Sehwag needs to make way for Rahane. AUS: Cowan needs to make sure he stays in the middle long enough- I would defs move Watson up the top with him to apply him better. I think warner is more worried about smashing the ball out of the park rather than talking to Cowan and helping him build an innings out there in the middle. Watson's advice and approach would give Ed something to model and deliver on. Also Aus would be silly to not include pattinson- the guy is a champ- id love to see him rip through a batting order if he bowls well. Having said that him vs sachin would be pretty cool too. young gun vs the gold standard

Posted by satishchandar on (February 28, 2013, 3:58 GMT)

Just because Henriques batted awesome, we can't say it was a wise decision. If you pick 3 full pace bowlers, then your all rounder need to be a guy who can bowl spin in these conditions. Same way, if you pick a pace bowling all rounder, pick two main spinners with two pace combo. As Pattinson did a great job in bowling, he looks certain to play but if he is still in that 4-5 overs per spell mode, he might turn a liability. Pick in Doherty at anyone's expense. He might look bad bowler but these days, left arm works more against the right handers. Australia can even try to play 3 all rounders in Maxwell, Henriques and Johnson with one pace one spin in Pattinson and Doherty to provide them some variation in attack too. They got so many options to look on.. It is upto the picked players to be open and perform to make a interesting series..

Posted by AidanFX on (February 28, 2013, 3:49 GMT)

Agree with comments by SmashingBaby and Handyandy. Aus batters top order needs to hold up. Two spinners may have got whacked all over the park. It is a part of Indian tactics to go after the spinner. Doherty is the sort they would go to smash.

Posted by handyandy on (February 28, 2013, 3:24 GMT)

Lets put things in perspective ... our one spinner got belted around the park. There is no guarantee that two spinners would have fared any better.

Posted by SmashingBaby on (February 28, 2013, 3:04 GMT)

I'm seeing alot of comments saying that picking so many quick bowlers is bizarre and look at England's recent success etc. However there is an important element that this opinion is missing: Australia lost the first test because of their batting, and because of an amazing innings by Dhoni. If the Aussie top order, particularly the top 3, actually performed to a reasonable standard, then they wouldn't be 3/70-odd every match leaving Clarke to try and rescue the innings every time. That way even with India scoring nearly 600 in their first innings, they might have had to chase 200 on the final day which would have been much more interesting, and GIVEN THE SPINNER/S SOMETHING TO BOWL AT ON DAY 5.

Posted by Andrew202 on (February 28, 2013, 2:59 GMT)

Australia have got to pick Johnson for the next test. It was unbelievable that he didn't get picked for the first test - a bowler who has experience in Indian conditions, has performed well there and can extract something out of flat pitches. Plus he's now bowling the most consistently he has in a couple of years. For these conditions he offers way more than Starc and Siddle.

I'd be dropping Siddle and Starc and bringing in Doherty and Johnson. I thought Lyon was mediocre long before this tour and Doherty is even worse but there's nothing else to choose from in the current squad. Maxwell's and Smith's bowling will get slaughtered if played.

Posted by V-Man_ on (February 28, 2013, 2:52 GMT)

Australia needs to get Steve O'Keefe in the team. He is almost as good as Lyon. He spins the ball away from the right hander. Indian and English line up is full of right handers. He is also a decent batsman. I also see a potential future captain in him. Played grade cricket against him. He has good leadership quality. Very chatty on the field and know how to get in to the batsman's head.

Posted by AidanFX on (February 28, 2013, 2:10 GMT)

Either Pattinson is fit or not fit - If he is not fit for this match neither then was he fit for the match we have just had. After all, isn't Starc carrying an injury - and hasn't he had a higher work load then Pattinson. Actually upon the Australian selection logic - Johnson should come in for Starc and Doherty for Pattinson. Oh wait, didn't they do a similar thing against South Africa - after the Australian's had had the better of SA in the two previous draws they rested "over worked players" (Siddle and Hiff) and then they got smashed. Seriously, the logic is all over the place. Aus selectors are made if they rest Pattinson due to a perception he "may" break down when he is one of the best bowlers in the team and the team is 0-1 down. For goodness sake, every Australian player in the team would be carrying some form of niggle/ injury that is the nature of elite sport.

Posted by   on (February 28, 2013, 1:07 GMT)

Their biggest mistake, i believe was announcing the XI two days before the test match. I think they need use their right hand batsman wisely. Their line up should be in following order Watson, Warner,Cowan, Clarke, Hughes, Henriques, Wade, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon & Doherty. I think Hughes should get one more opportunity in these conditions before he is dropped, so is Cowan. I know Strac is good bowler but Siddle is picked ahead coz he can steady longer spells. If Doherty can contain the Indian batsman, then Australians have good chance of restricting the Indian batsman. No fast bowler has consistently done well in India so spinners are main weapon in these pitches.

Posted by mike_b on (February 28, 2013, 0:38 GMT)

I find it SO difficult to understand why Steven O'Keefe isn't on the tour as an option. His first class stats out perform Doh!erty in every department.SO'K - 28 games for 78 wickets(2.7 per match)at 27runs & averaging 30 with the bat. XD- 52 games for 122 wts(2.3 per match)at 44runs & averaging 13 with the bat. Both are leftarm orthodox. It just doesn't weigh up. I've heard SO'K has put noses out of joint somewhere in the selection hierachy.The decision to overlook him seems to be totally political.Has it something to do with SO'K being NSW captain & MC doesn't like him because of that?I hope not as I'm a MC fan. I've seen both SO'K & XD bowl close up & I know which I'd rather face! S'OK's control & variation are far superior.Many of my friends are equally confused by this situation to the point where we'd like an explanation.Surely SO'K's better bowling and batting (at 8 or 9) would be useful in India despite whatever personality issues there are with Michael, Mikey or whoever!

Posted by Meety on (February 28, 2013, 0:32 GMT)

@VivGilchrist on (February 27, 2013, 7:03 GMT) - apart from the Katich/Clarke flare up - none of what you say has ANY shred of evidence! @emu1 on (February 27, 2013, 9:02 GMT) - WOW! Thanks for that. I am speechless. I cannot fathom that as SO'K does not seem to me to fit that description! I wonder how he is anymore overconfident than Maxwell? @Jono Makim - 100% agree. @ Beertjie on (February 27, 2013, 18:09 GMT) - mate, I am scared witless of Patto playing 2 matches in a row!!!

Posted by BG4cricket on (February 27, 2013, 23:57 GMT)

Surely in a must win test we are not going to do what we did in Perth and rest/rotate Patto, our best bowler out of the line up ! In any event we need to recognise conditions for what they are & play Doherty for Starc (I am edging for Siddle just for his experience) as this should provide a little better balance to the bowling - sure Doherty probably won't take many wickets but he'll keep things tight & provide a change of angle & line which might help Lyon. Less talked about is the batting & on spinning tracks having 4 openers in the team is poor balance as their footwork is poor. I am on the fence regarding Cowan & Watson but one has to go as they waste too many starts - I'll opt for Watson as the vice captain & get him to open in the hope he &Warner can start quickly. I would opt for Smith, who is an excellent player if spin at 5 (with Clarke moving to 4) & swap Henriques & Wade around in the order. We also need to put pressure on their bowlers !

Posted by Teej_onlycricket on (February 27, 2013, 23:45 GMT)

Selectors require SHANE WARNE TUTORIAL to understand the definition of a spinning bowler.

Lyons or Xavier only try and land the ball, not good enough. Their limitation is an advantage to any decent batsman. I think the Indians studied Lyons pretty well and simply took him off the game.

I miss the old magic, R.I.P

Posted by bookie7600 on (February 27, 2013, 23:20 GMT)

I think the Aussies won't be able to turn it around in the 2nd test as well- Reason being Indians now know that Pattinson is the biggest threat in the fast bowling dept but he doesn't bowl more than 3-4 over spells (max 6). I am pretty sure the wise heads will work this out and deny Pattinson any wickets in the coming games. It's all down-hill for Australia from here on.

Posted by Behind_the_bowlers_arm on (February 27, 2013, 22:58 GMT)

Australia really are in a muddle over spinners. Lyon seems to have gone backwards this summer after a promising start and is under pressure. If Doherty wasnt selected for the First Test or this why on earth was he picked in the squad? Maybe things will improve ..... Jon Holland will recover. Fawad Ahmed will get a passport and Steve O'Keefe will get a chance. His non-selection is puzzling .... and I have never heard Inverarity asked a direct question as to why not by a journalist. Odd. In the here and now .... I can not believe Pattinson cant be ready to bowl on Saturday (or later if Aust bat) after last bowling on Monday. Either way I'd leave out Siddle who is willing but ineffective in these conditions and play Johnson. If Pattinson does play i'd leave Starc out for Doherty. Also Wade is a no7 and Henriques should bat above him.

Posted by Kelum_w on (February 27, 2013, 22:58 GMT)

I think the Aussie batsman let them down more than the bowlers, although I was baffled at why they were so restrictive in bowling Pattinson. The simple rule "Don't pick a player if he's not fully fit", what s the point of having someone in the team if they r only giving 50%. Their bowling could have been better and they shouldn't have let Dhoni go berserk, but the main fallacy was their batsman's approach. Subcontinent wickets (apart from SSC in SL) rn't tailored for flamboyant batting. In Australia you can get away with being aggressive, the fast bouncy wickets reward aggressive batsman, in the subcontinent u need to show skill, experience and cunning to make runs. Clarke has had an amazing year massing runs at home but even with his form his style will give bowlers a chance to get him out when there's a bit in the pitch. They need to take a leaf out of Alistair Cook's book. Occupy the crease and you shall win.Dhoni used his home wicket knowledgeable and inexperience of the bowlers

Posted by hhillbumper on (February 27, 2013, 22:33 GMT)

nathan Lyon is not the greatest spinner in the world but lets be fair who has Aus got? England went through years of poor spinners.i mean look at Emburey? but they do need to play it a bit better and try not to give in to what is not the greatest india team ever.

Posted by Mitcher on (February 27, 2013, 22:11 GMT)

@Milhouse: You speak as if England have had a good run of late. Does one good win in India erase the memories of a flogging by Pakistan, inability to beat the hapless Sri Lankans and an absolute schooling by the Saffas? I guess never having had a truly great side your standards are lower.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 27, 2013, 22:06 GMT)

@Mitch1066: I'm afraid to say it looks like the 'Rebuilding Phase' for Australia hasn't even begun. I'd say serious change needs to happen in the academies and management. You're right about England though, but let's be honest: it's more phase 9 or 10 compared to Oz.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 27, 2013, 22:02 GMT)

How Australia aren't flying in Agar is beyond me. It's simple logic, surely- there aren't any other spin options, so bring in a promising youngster and give him a shot..? The news from down under doesn't look too promising either, with Pattison ruled out for mysterious health reasons, and Doherty even being considered: He was utter cannon fodder for England in the Ashes, what good is bringing him in on flat top in Hyderbad against this Indian team going to do? The Aussie management is stuck in a serious fork-in-the-road. They can't make the players play any better. They need to look for other options elsewhere.

Posted by Chris_P on (February 27, 2013, 21:08 GMT)

Meety & I agreed the non selection of SOK would be vital. Questions asking if another spinner should have been selected were asked prior, yet the NSP, in their wisdom selected players who were both non performers & offered little in the way of a viable option. While Doherty has been a solid performer in one day, his fc efforts this season in Australia, 4 games, 2 wickets for 160 runs really deserve selection for this touring team? Although I didn't like the idea of one spinner, the fact is you select you best available bowlers at the time, probably the only different change would have been MJ for Starc (in the conditions & in hindsight). Pattinson showed if a quick bent his back, wickets could be taken. Reverse swing didn't play a part at all, perhaps this could change, it needs to if Australia want 20 wickets, otherwise no dice.

Posted by landl47 on (February 27, 2013, 20:39 GMT)

Mickey Arthur's analysis is flawed. When he says "Our quicks took most wickets" he is glossing over the fact that three of the four seamers took 2 wickets between them. If Aus has another couple of Pattinsons, fine (and why weren't they playing in the first test?) but to take the return of one seamer and attribute the result to all four is just trying to mask the problem.

The reason two spinners turning the ball opposite ways is so effective is that the batsmen have to play them completely differently. The fact that Doherty doesn't turn the ball much is actually an advantage here, because a big spinner will often miss everything. Lyon's problem in the first test was that he bowled too many loose balls and the wicket was slow enough for the batsmen to take advantage of them.

Aus might go with Patto, Johnson, Moises, X and Lyon in the second test- the two quickest bowlers, two spinners and Henriques to give the others a break. That would be a much better balance IMO.

Posted by Jaffa79 on (February 27, 2013, 19:49 GMT)

A few notable Australians do seem to be missing from these pages don't they? Fairweather supporters who have desserted their team like they did at the MCG on boxing day 2010. I really want Cowan, Hughes, Lyon and Wade to do well, so they stay in the team. Mind you, if Lyon plays all 4 Tests, he'll break 1000 runs! All the Aussies need, is to draft in some replacements: 4 batsmen, 1 keeper and 2 spinners should do it.

Posted by Mitch1066 on (February 27, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

I think Australia need to find gem of a spinner help Lyon . Australia need show fight . England seam wanted it more

Posted by Mitch1066 on (February 27, 2013, 18:48 GMT)

Australia are not as good as they were. And India are better then Aussies but both are in transition and England are in parts 2

Posted by PPD123 on (February 27, 2013, 18:47 GMT)

Aus selectors are in the same quandry as Indian selectors are when they send their team to Aus. Remember Perth? when Ind adopted the horses for courses policy and selected 4 seamers only to be hammered for 180 by Warner in a couple of sessions. Aus selectors should stick to their strengths. If their top four bowlers are 3-1 then go for it. Forget Henriques, he is not going to send shivers down the spine of any team. At best he will take a couple of wkts and dry up the runs at one end. I would swap Starc for Johnson - he will bring greater stabilty (is a handy lower order bat) and exp (this is his 3rd tour to Ind) to this Aus side. Give the bowlers a slightly defensive field (remember Aus in 2004) & make them bowl wkt to wkt. On these slow and low pitches, it is important to get it in line with the stumps. Check the records of Sub-sontinental greats and you would find that Bowled and LBW dominate their mode of dismissal - for ex - check Wasim, Waqar, Kumble & Murali's records

Posted by UnwedUnfed on (February 27, 2013, 18:43 GMT)

@ Test_cricket_is_better - if Aus is to pick only one of the fast bowlers, it definitely shouldn't be Pattinson. He is the most threatening of the lot, of course, but I don't think he can shoulder the workload of being the lone faster man (even with Henriques for some support). If he breaks down halfway into the first inning, Aus will be left with no fast bowlers at all. If it is to be one fast bowler, it should be Siddle. I myself, will take 2 fast bowlers - bowling Smith against India is kinda pointless (equivalent to adding a net of 100 runs to the Indian score I think). So my team would be: Warner, Cowan, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Henriques, Wade, Siddle, Doherty, Lyon, Pattinson.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 18:09 GMT)

australia despreatly needs a a great fan of australian team since 10yrs and i have not seen them stuggling like australia has got lots of cricketing talents but the team selection is not no spinning sensation like narine for wi...ajmal for pak n ashwin for ind.......aussie r champions so they ned tha fin e spineer n that could be ahem khan of bushrangers...n he had showed that in australian pithiches that he can turn the ball.....bring he on the wise u cannot give alot of chances to p hughes he cannot play test cricket send him back to county cricket...bring george bailey in he has been leadin aus int team he must be given wise

aus must also give chance to guys like shaun marh steve smith....

Posted by Beertjie on (February 27, 2013, 18:09 GMT)

I've just read that Pattinson may be rested. That puts quite a different slant to matters. I'd also rest Starc. @James_Murphy on (February 27, 2013, 14:25 GMT) I like your line-up. My reason is that I'd happily settle for a draw and gaining some experience. I'm not sure I'd exactly call those 3 "spin options", but without trying them you won't know. I'm impressed by the nominal "depth" in batting. It's the 3rd test they should be targetting. Then Patto, Starc and MJ all should play + the best of the "spin options" which should also include Lyon for consideration unless the Big Show can outdo Moises as an all-rounder. Khawaja, too, will replace any non-performer at Hyderabad and then it'll be game on if they replace Bird with a proper wk! So for 2nd test: Cowan, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Henriques, Wade, Maxwell, Johnson, Siddle and Doherty. Only 4 LHBs so see how they go against Ashwin. Of course Ojha may play, but as I say give them a shot and then prepare for the real test.

Posted by Robofk on (February 27, 2013, 17:54 GMT)

STOP TALKING ABOUT LYON PLEASE. Guys look at the records of all Aussie spin options Lyon has the best domestic record so they are playing with their best spin options. I agree he cant be a member of India's Z team. If you don't have much options you have play with your best option that may not good compared to others. I already told this series is a 3-0 thing because Aussies is playing without a good spinner. Second major problem for Aussies is that they are playing with only 3 Test bats man(Clarke,Cowan and Hughes). You should be a good player to convert the starts you got into big scores then only your team can win Test matches. If every bats man scored 30 runs you can win a ODI/T20 but not Test. Aussies should have brought someone like David Hussey (rh bats man) who can play spin. 2004 Aussies won the series because that time was the best tour of Shane Warne, he supported McGrath and Gillespe very well. Also they had goo batsmans like Hayden, Langer, Clarke, Martin and Gillchrist.

Posted by vroom84 on (February 27, 2013, 17:49 GMT)

Australians need to open with Watson and Warner. They talked about being attacking, but are being defensive in the 1st place by not opening with Watson. I think they should play (in that order) Watson, Warner, Cowan, Clarke, Henriques, Wade, Maxwell, Pattinson, Starc, Lyon, Doherty Hughes looked out of sorts and there are too many left handers in the top 6. Maxwell could quickly score more than him and can bowl too. And Clarke has got to bat at 4.

Posted by Micky.Panda on (February 27, 2013, 17:32 GMT)

@Test_Cricket_is_Better My 12 would be Warner, Watson, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Henriques, Haddin (or Wade), Pattinson, Bird, O'Keefe (or Maxwell or Doherty or some other spinner), Lyon with Siddle as 12th man. Don't see any reason to play Cowan (never been good enough) or Starc.

Posted by husain.lokhand on (February 27, 2013, 17:29 GMT)

i think india should drop harbhajan and choose ohja as he il give ashwin better support den bhajji .... and give shikar dhawan a chance in place of m vijay

Posted by gsingh7 on (February 27, 2013, 17:15 GMT)

@ bobmatin-- u spipped my point that even this depleted indian team is better than ur depleted aus side. also u did lot of dis service to monty panesar by saying aus wud turn around the series like that man did. he was unplayable at times , swann alone was used by indian batsmen to increase their averages in first test where a walking wicket in form of sehwag scored century. monti win it for them.alongside reverse swing of jimmy.aus have no monti , not even 1/3 rd as good. u will realise this on sunday evening.(if aus win toss , else india will bat till monday)

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 17:06 GMT)

Chennai pitch have full of spin friendly pitch.But hyderabed is full contrast of chennai.Pitch is supported to batting.So australian team considering as Maxwell as replace of siddle or starc...

Posted by creekeetman on (February 27, 2013, 16:49 GMT)

not sure how fans can draw comparisons to england.... england have two quality spinners, oz dont.. plain and simple. and unlike SA who can get away with playing an average spinner, because they're extremely strong every where else, oz have other weak points so it becomes even more apparent. play four pacemen, use clarke, warner, watson etc to bowl inbetween, drop wade and pick a real keeper/batsman and put watson at 6, if he cant play spin he should'nt be playing in india.

Posted by SomersetJord on (February 27, 2013, 16:43 GMT)

I really think Arthur is completely missing the point here, yes your quicks took most of the wickets, they did outnumber your spinners 4 to 1 so you'd expect that really, (especially as your spinner is seen as more of a holding spinner and not a big wicket taker) and the real point is they took 12 wickets and not 20 which tends to be a problem when trying to win a test match. They also gave up far too many runs for the wickets that they did take. Classic case of Arthur trying to polish a turd, when the bottom line is you had all the evidence you could possibly want of how to win the game from the England series but chose to ignore it and go your own way, for which you were duly punished. Muppet.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 16:29 GMT)

Australia needs to balance the 12 for the 2nd Test r Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Henriques, Wade, Johnson, Pattinson, Lyon, Doherty with Siddle as 12th. & india need to concentrat on opening pair

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

The Aussies keep going on about how their quicks took most of the wickets as if that justifies the balance of their side. Well duh: all their bowlers bar one were quicks.

They could have gone in with no spinners, meaning quicks would have taken all the wickets, but wouldn't mean it was the correct way to go.

Posted by mshyder on (February 27, 2013, 16:09 GMT)

Mickey Arthur seems to be missing the point. Even if OZ played 2 spinners it may not have made much difference it is the lack of wicket taking quality of the OZ spinners which is the issue. Lyon is not a match winning spinner period. The sooner OZ realize that the better. If he is all they have got then we may see a white wash by India in this series. Doherty may provide some help but it may not be adequate to win matches here. It seems Australia has a very empty closet when it comes to spinners. It is a sad situation but accept it and may be assign Mcgill or Warne to groom a youngster for future.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

Lyon is a fast learner. He bowled exceedingly well in the second innings. (Sachins 2 sixes in consecutive balls is Sachin's 'plus'. Don't take it as Lyon's 'minus' . Wade also dropped Pujara of Lyon's bowling. Oz should use the 'improved Lyon' and Mr X - the DoHurty, in tandem at Hyderabad.

Among Pacers, Johnson will be more effective than Starc or even a 'Siddle on the decline', on Indian pitches. (Check and re-fix Johnson's radar though to prevent spraying. Wade is not good enough to gather the many leg-side wides).

On a spinning track, there could be temptations to try 'spinning all-rounders'. It will be utterly foolish to use either Maxwell or Smith in place of the brilliant player Moises. (Pretty soon, Mumbai Indians are going to learn, how much excess payment they made to get Maxwell. Of course, they are rich enough to blow their money on passing fancies)

Posted by AKS286 on (February 27, 2013, 15:42 GMT)

Clarke must give up to his Egos and must call back senior players like haddin, hauritz, MJ, marsh. and its time to take strong decisions for his favourable players like warner, lyon, wade, maxwell. Thanks to clarke the good player of spin Mr. Katich is axed and force him for retirement.

Posted by bobmartin on (February 27, 2013, 15:35 GMT)

Posted by gsingh7 on (February 27, 2013, 14:33 GMT) "@bobmartin-- dhoni showed enough talent alongside kohli that this aus bowlers are not same as 2004 ones. this aus team is on downward slide and there for the taking. 4-0 is wat i will hope to see." I admire your optimistic patriotism, but wasn't the same thing being said when England arrived in India and lost the first test. .Revenge... whitewash and other such claims were being bandied about with carefree abandon... I thought you might have learned your lesson from that series... obviously not...And I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of the final result and how far down the rankings you went following that series.

Posted by AKS286 on (February 27, 2013, 15:31 GMT)

I think Lyon can break the record of Tantenda Taibu-- retirement in most early age. After retirement he will go for AuS bowling coach definitely Clarke will support him. If same figure & bowling done by Hauritz, Kreja, Beer, Agar, Boyce, doherty, SO'k then they will never come back to international cricket after Clarke's retirement there is a chance. But look at the support & encouragement for lyon. AND Everyone here is giving the example of Eng for 2 spinners. Friends they are Swann & monty. Here is school campus spinner. and also Oz plays paper cricket like Lyon's record is better than Monty.... ok i won you lost. next i have Steyn and I have siddle ok you won. 1-1 each match draw.

Posted by Charlie101 on (February 27, 2013, 15:28 GMT)

I do not follow Aussie domestic cricket but what has happened to Nathan Hauritz ??? He was the first choice Aussie spinner in early2009 and then had a row with Ponting and I have never heard of him again. Has he been injured as I always thought he was a bit underated like Harris of South Africa but always took his share of wickets. Surely Australia need his bowling at the moment .

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (February 27, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

Australia will have to play 'double Ton' dart slinger Nathan Lyon as there simply is no other decent spin options available. How much longer will Clarke continue to hide by batting down at 5, how much? He should be leading from the front and helping his top order out by batting at 3 or 4, as he plays spin well.

Posted by AKS286 on (February 27, 2013, 15:07 GMT)

Almost 97% of people criticizing lyon and 2.9% encouraging him (Indian fans because they know lyon is the man who made more runs than MSD). Since debut to till now everyone from Legend to layman everyone knows lyon except clarke. Still no one is asking about Wicket Keeper? Bring Haddin or paine and Mathew waste must leave. Lyon gave overall 244 for 4(dec) and the whole Oz team all out on 214. and lyon avg is also more than whole Oz team.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 15:03 GMT)

Austaralia needs to go with four fast bowlers. This is their strength. I don't see any of their front line spinners winning a match for Australia except making life easy for India. Michael Clarke is a better bowler than all of Australia's recognized spinners. I would select four fast fast bowlers and bring Bailey in as an extra batsman bowler. Also use the batsmen to bowl occasional spin. The problem with Australia is that there is no discipline bowling. Bowling short and wide will not win you a match. Chances of no slip catches will not win you a match. Even chances of no LBW decisions will not win you a match. They just need to bowl fuller and on the wicket.

Posted by Mitch1066 on (February 27, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

Well clearly Aussies did not pay attention how England lost in first test using similar three seamers rather then the two and two which helped win series. Clearly Aussies need use two spinners

Posted by Rakesh_Sharma on (February 27, 2013, 14:54 GMT)

I think Australia and England always make mistake of including just one spinner. Let me tell you Indian batsman are not as good players of spin as it is made up. For one even the best spinner gets marginalized if he is the lone spinner. Whn two spinners play in tandem the pressure builds up. Australia does not have 4 PAttissons. WI side had 4 fast bowlers in 80s who were better than Pattisson. The bowlers have to be really fast and good ot medium pacers nwho get ineffective on such pitches. Just take the case of England.They made mistake of just one spinner in 1st Test and lost .Later with a world class spinner in Swan at one end complemented by Monty Panesar Indian batsman were suffocated. This should be the case. Lyon bowled exceptionally. If Xavier Dorathy was at the other end the result would have been different.Finally ,it is better to have an average spinner as the four bowler than average fast medium bowler here in India. This is a rule not option and things will turn around

Posted by gsingh7 on (February 27, 2013, 14:33 GMT)

@bobmartin-- dhoni showed enough talent alongside kohli that this aus bowlers are not same as 2004 ones. this aus team is on downward slide and there for the taking. 4-0 is wat i will hope to see.

Posted by Love_this_game on (February 27, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

Arthur was brought up on quick South African wickets and now coaching Aus on quick wickets as well. When was the last time he included 2 front line spinners in his team, be it S.A or Aus. He needs to change his mind set.

Posted by James_Murphy on (February 27, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

Cowan Warner Watson Clarke Smith Wade Henriques Maxwell Johnson Pattinson Doherty. Lyon hasn't bowled well for over a year, give big show a go. Can bat too. Hughes looks lost against spin, bring him back for the Ashes. Smith can bowl too as well as playing spinners well. Doherty for Siddle Starc rested for Johnson to bowl out and out pace. Bat to 10 with 3 spin options and 3 pace options. Please remember this is Indian conditions normal rules don't apply!'

Posted by Kapstif on (February 27, 2013, 14:14 GMT)

I don't know why people are surprised the Aussies went in with 4 seamers. They did pay attention to the England series as Mickey said but the problem is twofold.

1. They didn't possess one, never mind two spinners in the class of Swann and Panesar 2. They had a touch of arrogance about their seamers and assumed they were perhaps better equipped in this department than England.

To some extent Pattinson proved he was capable but they have learnt the hard way (as did England) that even the best seamers in the world can struggle to make an impact on these tracks.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 13:52 GMT)

very fair comment by Arthur, its really not easy to pick dohrthey over starc. but they can bring in khwaja at no.3instead of hughes or may be they can try smith. Bowling line is ok with pattison siddle starc lyon. my X1 would be : Watson-Warner, khwaja, clarke, smith,henriques, wade,siddle, starc. pattisnson, lyon

Posted by Mill1 on (February 27, 2013, 13:50 GMT)

Go for the X-Factor - Mitchell Johnson....might help take the pitch out of the equation. Drop Starc. Make sure they have a slip fielder in and stop sending the ball to the legs of the Indian batsmen, hoping for some form of reverse swing.

Posted by TheFamousEccles on (February 27, 2013, 13:48 GMT)

Fred Truman must be turning in his grave. Dropping a bowler becuase he bowled 33 overs in heat!? What a joke!

Posted by bobmartin on (February 27, 2013, 13:47 GMT)

All those decrying Lyons and Doherty as average/poor spinners and using the analogy of Warne being carted all over the park by the Indian batsmen as reasons for not playing them.. seem to be overestimating the Indian batting...Sure.. when Warne was being hit the line-up had Tendulkar and Sehwag in their prime, Laxman, Dravid and probably Ganguly in their line up.. and the team were on the way up...They have nowehere near that talent now and are on the way down... as England showed..They are there for the taking...

Posted by Beertjie on (February 27, 2013, 13:33 GMT)

Well if "you get a lot more control from your left-armer" for goodness pick him now. I wouldn't ever suggest playing for a draw but imo that is the best result Oz could reasonably hope for. The venue for the third test will be the most likely for an Oz triumph, so the first test pacers (with perhaps Johnson for Siddle) would be best there together with the better spinner after seeing how they go in Hyderabad. Given that perspective (incl. the need for rotation) the best lot for Sat. would be: Watson, Warner, Hughes or Cowan, Clarke, Khawaja, Henriques, Wade (actually Paine/Haddin if he could be sent over and arrive in time), Johnson, Starc/Siddle, Lyon, Doherty. Resting Pattinson now might be a masterstroke if he can then complete the series!

Posted by SirViv1973 on (February 27, 2013, 13:33 GMT)

You have to feel that the rest of the series will be difficult for Aus whether they choose to play the extra spinner or not. They are not in the position Eng were, as we were able to bring in a top class spinner for a non firing seamer. You also felt that the batting would improve. The reason we lost the first test was that we didn't put enough runs on the board first inns & you could already see that changing in the 2nd inns. I don't think Aus batting will improve an awful lot and you just can't see them consistently making 450+ in their first inns which is what they will need to do to really put pressure on Ind. From Ind point of view they can strengthen by bringing in Ojha, personally I think he should be in instead of Bajj.

Posted by pat_one_back on (February 27, 2013, 13:32 GMT)

Agreed @Super-Dog, the only thing surprising/unexpected about this test was Dhoni's knock, some payback for all the Tests Gilly won Aust from No 7 perhaps! THE WORST thing selectors can do is flip strategy on the back of a defeat that hinged heavily on one successful knock and a collective shortage of luck with the close calls. Successful teams are built not magically selected, the Aussies can execute better, India did not have this test their own way until Dhoni's hundred and subsequent blitz, relax folks, let the boys settle into their work.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 27, 2013, 13:32 GMT)

@ Super-Dog: I think what you mean is if Clarke had walked after middling it to the fielder then India would have been 1-0 with two days to spare. Not having a single spinner in the whole of Aus is another factor. As is having failures in the team like Wade, the worst gloveman I've ever seen and an average bat at best too. Add to that a brittle, incompetent top order, a captain who hides down the order and a seam attack that does nothing with the ball, and you've got yourself quite a mess.

Posted by jumblebum on (February 27, 2013, 13:28 GMT)

1 ) Watson 2) Warner 3) Hughes 4) Khawaja 5) Clarke 6) Wade 7) Henriques 8) Maxwell 9) Johnson 10) Pattinson 11) Doherty. Job Done

Posted by SirViv1973 on (February 27, 2013, 13:23 GMT)

The Pattinson situation seems somewhat bizzare. There seems to be a suggestion that he may not even play in Hyderbad. Test cricket isn't a game where you can protect your main strike bowler. If he isn't deemed fit enough to bowl spells longer than 3 overs then you have to question him being there at all. If they are protecting him for the ashes then a test series in Ind is not the way to do it. I also have to mention Steve Smith, I'm informed he dosen't really bowl anymore so is not competing for the allrounders spot which must mean he is just batting cover. I haven't seen a single person on these boards put him in their XI & I feel he destined to sit in the pavilion & carry drinks for the whole series, this seems like a complete waste of time. If Smith can't devolpe his bowling he will never be a credible inclusion in the test side so why didn't oz pick a squad of 16 or have someone like Doolan there for the experience (as he might actually make a test batsman 1 day).

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 13:20 GMT)

Ed Cowen, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Hanriques, Wade, Maxwell, Pattinson, Siddle, Doherty, Lyon. Best Line up whatever the conditions are..

Posted by SirViv1973 on (February 27, 2013, 13:09 GMT)

In my mind there was no question that Aus should have played 2 spinners in the first test. Doherty was selected over O'Keefe so the management should have backed him. On these types of surfaces it would take an exceptional seam bowling unit to be succesful. Although these oz guys have been quite succesful at home, in these conditions they either lack experience or have been pretty ave in Siddle's case at least, in the past. I have been saying for weeks they cannot win this series with 3 quciks & have to play 2 spinners, surely Eng's experience told them that? Doherty's record is poor & if selected he may well be given a torrid time but he & Lyon are all Aus has so they must back them & hope between them they can produce something.

Posted by Super-Dog on (February 27, 2013, 13:04 GMT)

WHAT IS GOING ON? I repeat, WHAT IS GOING ON? We loose a test match off the back of one of the great test match innings courtesy of one Mr MS Dhoni and all hell breaks loose. It's simple Dhoni makes less than 50 and we may be sitting one nil up, not the Indians. Yes Ashwin bowled superbly, but Dhoni's 200 was the difference. The chances of a repeat sre pretty slim. What is the point of picking Doherty who averages over 40 per wicket. The Indians carted the great Shane Warne, they will destroy Doherty. Yes Lyon struggled, but he was always going to. Lyon is a mile better than Doherty, so to think Doherty is going to somehow be the saviour is so illogical it borders stupidity. It's simple, pick our best 11 players, fullstop. Siddle may have not gotten wickets, but he was economica and will be committed next match and likley get some wicketsl. Starc may not have gotten wickets, but he is still learning and is just as likely to go ballistic winning us the match. MUST STICK WITH THESE GUYS!

Posted by AKS286 on (February 27, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

If Aus will go with 3 spinners (LYON, Doherty, Agar/SO'K) & 1 fast bowler (Pattinson) then the result will be same. India's Rohit sharma, Raina, Sehwag, SRT, Yuvraj, are better spinner than Aus specialist spinner. If Aus want to win the series they has relies on Pace Bowler. Pace bowler key to success is REVERSE SWING unfortunately No one is good enough a little bit of BIRD but he is no more in this series. About Maxwell he is not a bowler nor a batsman.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (February 27, 2013, 12:52 GMT)

@akash agrwal, It was to Ind's detriment that they did not 'rate' Monty before Mumbai test. If they would have done their homework they would have known he did an outstanding job in the 2nd & 3rd tests in UAE this time last yr and is a much improved bowler from 3 or 4 yrs ago.

Posted by Webba84 on (February 27, 2013, 12:36 GMT)

People keep talking about two spinners as though simply including two of Australia's spinners in the11 would have magically won the match. Yes it worked for England but pray tell who is the Swann and Pannesar of Australian cricket because it sure as hell aint Lyon and Doherty. If another spinner was chosen it probably would have been at the expense of Pattinson (remembering Stark and Siddle have been good performers in the leadup). So remove Pattinson's figures from the scorecard and duplicate Lyon's and see what sort of result you get.

Point is hindsight is great and all but they made a pretty good call with the squad for the first test. Now they know a lot more they can make a better one for the second.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 12:29 GMT)

lol..."I think going to Hyderabad we'll have to look at conditions before we make a proper decision. Looking at the way it ended up probably two spinners [would have been good] but our quicks were the most likely out there, so I am not sure which way really." - See more at:

Posted by mautan on (February 27, 2013, 12:28 GMT)

Different rules for different players...everyone was very quick to dispose off KREZJA after a brilliant debut with 12 wickets, that too against a far superior ( remember Dravi bowled through the gate?) batting lineup. However with far inferior figures, Lyon is being constantly encouraged, as if he is a 15 year old boy playing his first FC game! Remember Krezja was a big spinner of the ball and playing just his first test...whereas Lyon is quite experienced by now..of well thats how the world works I guess..likes and dislikes!

Posted by Theredbaron on (February 27, 2013, 12:25 GMT)

Well well well, this is funny. Wholesale changes to the Aussie side is a sure sign of despiration. There is one man that needs to go and that is Micky"havent a clue" Arthur and his selection panel. You cannot blame the players because they are trying very hard, they just lack the talent that the other top sides have. This side is going to be hammered in the up coming Ashes series

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 12:18 GMT)

It's not just that Doherty can't turn the ball ...... he also can't bat!!!

Posted by highveldhillbilly on (February 27, 2013, 12:09 GMT)

@Leggie - Aus weren't lucky, the BCCI don't want DRS so they have to live with these "unlucky" decisions. All it's going to take is one very close match that means something and India must lose because of a terrible umpiring decision and then finally they'll accept DRS. It's not perfect but it's so much better than the alternative.

Posted by blink182alex on (February 27, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

Will have to look at conditions for the next test before settling on the 11. No doubt India will want another turner but i don't think they will make the same mistake as they did against England by making it a raging turner therefore equaling up the sides, if it's a pretty flat pitch for the 2nd test Aus could struggle to take 20 wickets again.

We shouldn't panic and go away from our strength but i would bring in Doherty (for me behind Holland, Beer and SOK but oh well), instead of Starc.

Pattinson, Siddle, Henriques, Lyon and Doherty the bowling attack.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

Yeah 2 spinners. This one - who takes his wickets in India at about 70 runs each...and another not so good. Sounds like a real top idea (if the plan is to bowl spin at batsmen who love spin and then chase down 700-800 runs) What a marvellous mind the man has. Spin when you don't have any quality spinners is just fodder. And Australia don't have any quality spinners.

Posted by Ajay02 on (February 27, 2013, 11:35 GMT)

India should concentrate on winning this series and not worry about anything at all. For SA tour , they will have enough fire power from Yadav, sharma, Dina, Sereesanth and swing from Kumar.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 27, 2013, 11:29 GMT)

It certainly is a 'dilemma'. Arthur has at his disposal Nathan '200 an innings' Lyon, who's only achievement was getting Tendulkar to play on, and not a single other spinner to speak of. None coming through the ranks. An empty talent pool for both batsmen and bowlers. He needs to get Agar on the next plane to India immediately.

Posted by Narkovian on (February 27, 2013, 11:28 GMT)

England made the same mistake not picking 2 spinners for the 1st Test recently. They lost the Test badly. Luckily learned the lesson fast. So Mr Arthur had a precedant to follow. Admittedly AUS don't have spinners like Monty and Swann. Siddle is ineffective in India. No loss to drop him and play Doherty.

Posted by Fleming_Mitch on (February 27, 2013, 11:19 GMT)

For the spinners its a no brainer that Doherty needs to come in given he is the only other spinner in the squad. For those few folks saying that Smith can come in for his bowling he has bowled less then 10 overs in shield this year so he is not there as the allrounder but as a reserve batsman and Khawaja is well ahead of him and deservingly so. I wouldn't touch the batting lineup too much excpet to bring Khawaja in for Cowan who hasn't impressed after 14 tests. Yes Hughes was bad but players shouldn't be dropped after one bad test. Wade should go but there is no one to replace him. I watched Hartley in the Ryobi final tonight and boy he is a good keeper, wish he was there. The bowling is where the changes will happen. I've just read that Pattinson may be rested which I find remarkable given that Bird is on his way home. Doherty for Starc and Pattinson plays. Take out Dhoni's double and Cowan's dropped catch of Kumar and that test could have been a lot closer. If we get smammered in the

Posted by Sunil_Batra on (February 27, 2013, 11:17 GMT)

Doherty for Starc or Siddle and Khawaja for Cowan. Dropping Starc for his footmarks is a interesting one. Footmarks can help a leftarm orthodox bowler coming around the wicket a great deal.Especially Doherty who bowls quite a straight line and doesn't turn the ball much at all so that might be one to think about.For example if one stays low and straight, LBW and bowled come right into the equation.

Posted by Mary_786 on (February 27, 2013, 11:07 GMT)

What the Aussie team needs to focus on is how do they get BIG scores, and create the best environment for players to get big tons…the only players capable of that currently are; Warner - play aggro from ball one and take his chances. Watto - just plunge that front foot forward and thwack everything to cow corner Phil Hughes - due a big score, some luck,but has his work cut out as he is weak against spin Khawaja - quality batsman who will shine but needs a good opportunity and not just 1-2 games like in the past. Clarke - some one has to stay around with him so he needs to bat at four. Henriques - Impressed me, i didn't think he would bat that well.

Posted by AhmedEsat on (February 27, 2013, 11:04 GMT)

If you couldn't select your spin-bowlers on a spinning pitch then why were they in the squad in the first place? I felt sorry watching the quicks struggle while Doherty watched from the pavilion!

Posted by Paul_Rampley on (February 27, 2013, 10:59 GMT)

@WarrenSmith i would like to see Khawaja come in as well, hopefully he gets his opportunity soon. Xavier Doherty did not set the world on fire when he got the opportunity during the 2010/11 Ashes, but if he is good enough to tour then he has to be good enough to play in some of the friendliest conditions he might encounter in his career"He has his work cut out in this tour. We won in 2004, on the same pitches, with 3 quicks and one spinner. It can be done. However - Clarke MUST move up to 4.

Posted by Leggie on (February 27, 2013, 10:58 GMT)

Australia must consider themselves lucky that they didn't lose by a huge margin because they benefited from a few umpiring errors - significantly Clarke's bat-pad that was turned down and a couple of very close lbw calls that seemed crashing into the middle of middle stump only for the umpires to turn it down. So, it's going to be an uphill task from this point on wards.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

I would also add that to anyone who thinks we don´t need more spin. India needed nothing but spin in the first test to win quite handsomely, that batting second! It was simply a numbers game here. Put enough balls in the right place and with the variations from the pitch results will come. You only have to watch Jadeja bowl to know he is no kind of Murali, Tayfield or Laker. He is really probably no better than Doherty. He simply puts ball after ball in the right area, that alone is enough to ask all sorts of questions. No-one ever saw Kumble ripping leg breaks but his consistency and control made him GREAT. Harbhajan was also in poor form here but still looked more threatening than any seamer outside of Patto. Get Doherty and Maxwell in there, one for control, one for some rip and a few counter attacks with the bat.

Posted by Thefakebook on (February 27, 2013, 10:26 GMT)

OK I have a theory here no people SO'K and other spinners are not going to arrive to steal the series for the OZ(sadly) but I believe what Australia should do is play both spinners lets give that a go too.Then if that does not work then give Maxwell a chance.If he fails too then play four quicks, Oh! wait OZ have all ready done that so then just wait for 3 years and white wash them back home again(easy).

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

I think the notion here of taking the spinners match aggregates and the quicks, then comparing them and coming up with the answer that the quicks were far more effective is completely laughable. If you took out Pattos figures, what are you left with for the quicks in terms of wickets? Two tailenders, that from 3 quicks! Starc gets a big fail here, Siddle a fail and Henriques the barest of pass marks, in terms of bowling. By comparison with these three you´d take Lyon every time. He also had some dropped catches off his bowling and may well have had Tendulkar a lot earlier if there´d been DRS.

Doherty has to play, short SOK being flown over.

@Warren Smith, Hughes did make a very good century in Sri Lanka just 18 months ago, Herath was in that bowling attack too. I think he was a little unlucky here in the first innings and obviously in the second too. Unlike Watson and Cowan he is a scorer of centuries and needs to be persisted with. He will come good.

Posted by guptahitesh4u on (February 27, 2013, 10:20 GMT)

The other trouble for Australia is the form of Indian batsmen..sachin and Dhoni were not scoring big since last couple of years (that was the case even in the series won by India)..and now they are among runs. Against Eng, only Pujara was among runs but now, it seems that Sachin, Dhoni, Kohli are also fired up..The way sachin batted, I am sure we will witness big innings from him in the remaining matches of the series..

Posted by guptahitesh4u on (February 27, 2013, 10:15 GMT)

Aus do not have quality spinner but they do have good pacers, so they can still put up a fight against India..I am thinking of the time when India will visit SA as Indian spinner won't be able to make any impact over there and India does not have any good pace bowler as well!!

Posted by Nerk on (February 27, 2013, 10:03 GMT)

You would think Doherty is a shoe in for the next test. Out of those in India, I actually think Maxwell is the best, and he can contribute with the bat a little. The only problem is that you would have two ROS bowlers operating in tandem, neither are world class spinners yet.

@emu1 - It's a shame that getting into the Australian cricket team requires so much politics. It would be nice if the best players were selected because they were the best players, and SOK has proved that he is the best spinner going around Australia at the moment. But, thems the breaks.

@Ozcricketwriter - Who is South Africa's "world quality spinner?" You may want to let the South African selectors know.

Posted by boofforheadcoach on (February 27, 2013, 9:56 GMT)

One thing that is annoying me in regards to Clarke and Arthur's post match comments is their defence of picking three quicks by stating that spin only took 3 wickets in the 1st innings while the quicks took 7. Maths science students will be quick to point out that 7 wickets spread across 3.5 quicks (Henrigues is poor 0.5) = 2 per bowler which is a worse outcome than Lyon's 3.

They should have picked Doherty and must do so for the next test! Bring in Johnson too and leave out Siddle and Starc.

Posted by AKS286 on (February 27, 2013, 9:50 GMT)

IF SO'K, Doherty, Agar, LYON all will produce same result then all fan will shout bring hauritz, Kreja, Warne, hogg, Mcgill. due to the great performance by n. lyon the Legendary Warne said I'm thinkung to come back. Always we heard after every match that Warne is thinking to come back due to the fantastic performance by lyon. BUT Me & everyone's were very disappointing because yesterday Warne told Arun Lal on the live TV in front of camera NO- I'm not coming back. my body don't allow now for5 days cricket.

Posted by uzairamir on (February 27, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

well what can australia do there clueless because they dont have any good spinner after shane warne and stuart mcgill they havent produced any good spinner

Posted by gimme-a-greentop on (February 27, 2013, 9:32 GMT)

As a neutral observer, it is unbelievable to me that Australia don't pick Mitchell Johnson now that he has made a return to form (sorry this isn't about spin bowlers). An opening pair of Pattinson and Johnson is potentially lethal if they are both firing and might negate the spin problem. Johnson has that X factor, I know he has been mocked by mostly English fans because he was in horrible form over there, but in his current rythm he is as good as any of Steyn , Philander, Morkel, Anderson etc.. and this is a south african saying this ! (and trust me I don't say it lightly)... I know Siddle is a good honest fast bowler who will run for days (which is handy in India) but he's never going to bowl anyone out on those pitches, whereas MJ on his day can bowl out anyone anywhere..

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 9:29 GMT)

England go to India and play one spinner realising too late for the 1st Test that they cocked up and subsequently went with two.... ....Australia go to India for the next series and play one spinner realising too late they should have had two!!! This is all in the same winter and within months of each other. With all of the experts, analysis gurus and the like why do the Aussies still cock-up where we did initially!! Surely there must be a second spinner Oz that could have helped?

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (February 27, 2013, 9:28 GMT)

I have said all the way through that you can only take spin to India if your spin bowlers are the best in the world. England managed it because Swann is the best spinner in the world and Panesar is also world class. South Africa similarly have world quality spinners, as do Sri Lanka and Pakistan. But Australia don't. The simple fact of the matter is that Australia's spin attack is the worst in the world. Australia have taken some good spinners to India in the past and had 2 spinners playing at once and failed. Playing 2 spinners here would be a huge mistake. The only possible way that it could work is if the combination of left and right somehow combines to work. But I would much rather see us play to our strength and go in with all pace.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 27, 2013, 9:25 GMT)

It seems that Arthur & Clarke are masters of muddled thinking. It was utterly obvious to the cricketing world that picking 4 quicks + Lyon at Chennai was not only flying in the face of reason, history & logic, it was a revealing admission that although Doherty has been chosen to tour, he is not considered a good enough spinner to step up when the conditions should have been ideal for him. In other words, what on earth is he doing in India? The only alternative (let's call it plan C) is to see if one of the quicks can concentrate on bowling cutters at a medium pace. It's an experiment & therefore entitled to a go, but one thing is for sure: if you continue to try what you've already tried, then don't expect the outcome to be any different. Michael Clarke must also be prepared to do a hand's turn. 10-12 overs a day can't be too much for him, can it? (The old adage that spinners improve with use is applicable here!)

Posted by Atifkhan3489 on (February 27, 2013, 9:19 GMT)

I m pakistani and have some suggestions for austialian selectors for rest of tour. Australia should play with right handed batsman steven smith should be included in team becoz he plays spin well.other thing is that they are paying price for not selecting hadding in the spuad.he is aussies 1st choice wk and batsman and he can plays spin well.ashwin bowls superbly to left handers so i think thats solution.the other suggestion is that they should include doherty in place of siddle.then bowling should b one left arm fast and two right arm fast with 2 spinners one left and one right.

Posted by GopiKothandapani on (February 27, 2013, 9:17 GMT)

Apart from criticising australian spinners, aus batsmen not able to play indian spinners. so, bringing extract spinner into aus side would not do much impact as indians are not bad at spinners in the current form i guess.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (February 27, 2013, 9:07 GMT)

Doherty... are you serious? You cant be serious, he has a first class bowling average of 45 !!! LOL!! Indian players are licking their lips at the prospect, life seems to be getting easier for them. The bottom line is Australia have turned up to India with only one spinner who is average at best.

Posted by emu1 on (February 27, 2013, 9:02 GMT)

To Aaron Croft, Meety and other O'Keefe fans: Chris Barrett said in The Age/SMH this week that the selectors have drawn a line through his name because SOK is too confident and talkative, and would not fit in with current team culture. While Barrett's view is presumably based on behind the scenes conversations, the CA hierarchy are unlikely to confirm it publicly.

Recent history tells us that perceptions can have a major influence on somebody's selection chances: Chris Rogers was criticised for not being a 'team' player and has only played one Test despite a great FC record. Some people think that Khawaja has a poor work ethic; he's not in the team. In the case of O'Keefe, you would think self-belief or even over-confidence would not be a permanent bar to selection. After all, Warney was hardly a shrinking violet. You'd also think that Clarke, the coach and CA's high performance staff could work with SOK to get the best out of him, but don't hold your breath.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 9:01 GMT)

@ landl47 .... In the 1st Innings Warner was dropped on 18 while Clarke was given not out on an undisputed catch. In the 2nd Innings Clarke was dropped on 0, while a 66 run 10th Wicket Partnership saved Australia from an innings defeat. I concede that it could have been closer .... but it could have been a lot, lot worse!!!

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 8:52 GMT)

Clarke and Warner were in the team, the latter can spin the ball more than Doherty, that Captain chose to bowl them for only 11-overs .... just like the Captain chose to take off Pattinson when it was 2/12 .... just like the Captain chose to drop one slip a few balls after Pattinson took his 2nd Wicket .... just like the Captain chose to bowl Pattinson with no slips in his second spell .... just like the Captain allowed Warner to bowl around the wicket.

The problem is ...... THERE IS NO SECOND SPINNER ON TOUR!!!!

Posted by ziggy500 on (February 27, 2013, 8:50 GMT)

If Australia had the quality spinners in their squad it would have been piece of cake to pick two spinners, unfortunately, they don't. I truly believe that the pacers are the most likely to take wickets even though it is extremely spin friendly. Lyons spin has no lethality and therefore is not hard to handle. Where are his variations, where is the wicket taking doosra, arm ball or carom ball because frankly, turn and drift only take you so far. Doherty is more 'hold one end up' bowler, so he is pretty useless as well. O'Keefe sounds good, but haven't seen him play enough to judge whether he is a better choice or not. When Lyon develops his wicket taking doosra, arm ball or even his own unique delivery, he can become a true force to reckon with.

Posted by sando31 on (February 27, 2013, 8:50 GMT)

My aussie team for 2nd test:

Warner, Cowan, Watson, Hughes, Clarke, Henriques, wade, Johnson, Pattisnon, Lyon, Doherty

Johnson and patto should just bowl out and out pace (like patto in 1st test) supported by Lyon, Doherty- whom i believe could very successful in India-, and Henriques

I also believe Maxwell could play a part in the series. I myself think he's too arrogant yet by attacking spinners, could throw them off their lines and put pressure back on them (like Dhoni with Lyon)!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by baghels.a on (February 27, 2013, 8:41 GMT)

Aussie fans seem to be rather harsh on there spinners and qoute there bowling stats but those facts are misleading because those spinners have bowled on hard bouncy pitches or concrete flat pithces or Hobart where initially there was lot of grass left on the pitch and Doherty hardly used to bowl 8 or 9 overs and that to provide relief to the seamers bowling long spells, look at Ashwin spinning hero for our team, he hardly got wickets when India toured Australia last summer .

Posted by disco_bob on (February 27, 2013, 8:35 GMT)

When Ashwin and Ojha play together, they seem to alternate who takes the bulk of the wickets. So yes, having two spinners would make it more balanced. I'm surprised that Clarke did not play more overs, he was happy to bowl in tandem to Faf.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 8:33 GMT)

Aussies made mistake of not bringing S.O.Keefe instead one of the seamers, next time around we could bring Fawad Ahemed exiciting leg spinner, love to seehim in the aussie team.

Posted by swauzzie on (February 27, 2013, 8:32 GMT)

@phunny_game I think you're on the right track there mate. As much as Sids is a great workhorse, can bowl all day if he's asked, that's not what Oz needs in India. They need a tear-away & a left armer.(Henriques showed his woth too with the bat - hope he shows his worth with the ball in the 2nd!) Stay away from Maxwell too I recon. They don't want another bits & pieces bowler like he is. Doherty looks like the best option that they have in India at the moment. (had SO'K been in town - well, that'd be another story!) Don't think they should be doing too much with the batting line-up. They need to give the guys a chance. Nobody said that life after Ponting & the Huss was going to be easy, but we've gotta let the replacements have a chance first! Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Henriques, Wade, Stark/Johnson, Pattinson, Lyon, Doherty

Posted by GeoffreysMother on (February 27, 2013, 8:31 GMT)

Let's not forget that Australia wasted a huge advantage here in winning the toss. How would Lyon (or Doherty) have gone if India had batted first? I can't see India changing the pitches (why would they) and if India replace Harbajan with Ohja I can only see it getting harder. On the other hand I think that Cowan has the potential to play a long , if ugly, innings. That can, like Alastair Cook did, wear the Indian's down and that is when they become vulnerable.

I too am a bit puzzled at the constant omission of Hauritz (and as several posters state, O'Keefe): has he lost it or is it simply that Lyon sings a better team song?

Posted by disco_bob on (February 27, 2013, 8:29 GMT)

"breaking down" should not have anything to with the "hot conditions".

Posted by sahbas_s on (February 27, 2013, 8:28 GMT)

Can some aussie tell me what is edcowan doing in this squad? and why they didn't select experienced katich? can't really figure out the basis of selection of this aussie team.....

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (February 27, 2013, 8:22 GMT)

@Grant King, you obviously did not watch the match. Clarke used himself so sparingly and late that he would not count as a second spinner. In his first, two over spell he bowled from the wrong side of the wicket but still looked dangerous against Tendulker. He did not bowl any significant spell. Effectively Australia only used one spinner.

Posted by joseyesu on (February 27, 2013, 8:20 GMT)

Totally 5 Aus bowlers operated, thereby 4 pacers contribution is 66 % of wickets and Lyons contribution alone is 33% of wickets. Then what Authur means by "We didn't get a massive return from spin in this game".

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 8:15 GMT)

India needs to replace Bhuvi with a proper quick in Hyderabad. Its unfair to expect Bhuvi to perform on such tracks with the pace he has. Even Phillander would have struggled on such tracks. What about Shami Ahmed. he bowls full and is expert in reverse swing. And he bowls in the high 130's too.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 8:13 GMT)

Michael Clark needs to bat three and Watson four and Henriques five if the Aussies are to amass tall scores in every match. A big score is a must on Indian pitches and the best way to do so is have a top heavy line up who can seize the initiative from the word go- Case in point- Matty Hayden in 2001 series. Look at the scores Aussies got in the tests here. And frankly, there is a case for Steve Smith in at 6 too as he is not only a leg spinning option, but is more at ease with the turning bowl as a batsman. he did well for Pune in the IPL.

Posted by whoster on (February 27, 2013, 8:08 GMT)

It's all very well talking about the possible 'mistake' of not playing two spinners - but the Aussie spin options are pretty modest. England succeeded in India with two spinners because Swann and Panesar are both quality bowlers. Doherty's done well in ODI's recently, but with his only 2 Test appearances being in the last Ashes series where he got mauled, it's asking a lot to expect him to make a difference. It may be worth playing Doherty simply to help ease the workload on Pattinson, who looks to be a quality bowler who fully deserved his figures in the first Test. Apart from Pattinson's wickets, and Siddle bowling economically, there's nothing to indicate there's 20 wickets in this attack. As for the batting, Aus better pray that Clarke's amazing form continues for a while yet - otherwise they'll be trounced. Clarke and the impressive Henriques aside, it doesn't look like the rest of the batsmen have either the patience or technique to build a long innings.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 8:05 GMT)

On another note. Everyone has forgotten Phil Hughes performances. His cross bat technique is a big a fault against quality spin as it is against quality seam. I know he got out to a ball like an exploding hand grenade, but surely the people in the know can see his obvious weakness against spin bowling on pitches with variable bounce. It was horrific to watch. Ive been a fan of his for some time and yes he has worlds of potential, but the fc system in aus does not teach young batsmen to play swing bowling or spin bowling very well. His weakness has simply changed. It was the short rising ball (or at least he believed it after his england experience - im not sure it was an actual technical fault so much as england got into his head), now its the swinging, spinning ball. id replace him with khawaja for now and when we go to england id drop them both for rogers. what must he and o keefe do to get a game? they continuously out perform everyone in their respective fields!

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (February 27, 2013, 8:03 GMT)

If Lyon went for over 4 an over, what do we expect from lower ranked spinners? it's easy to think of 2 spinners - what will you do once the second spinner starts gong for over 5 an over? you are only increasing the pressure on pacers. It's a different ball game if u have 2 quality spinners which Eng did. Aus was let down by how the rest of the paers didnt support Pattinson. Fix that problem and that should give better returns than introducing another weak spinner.

Posted by chandanpau on (February 27, 2013, 8:01 GMT)

replace one seamer with doherty.simple as dat.and as far as india is concern ,just fit ojha sumwhere in playing 11.he s indias numero uno spin bowler.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (February 27, 2013, 8:01 GMT)

@always positive you would think different if you assessed Monty Panesar's performances in Australian conditions. The criteria by which we areassessing some of our bowlers. I would suggest that there are at least three sla bowlers, none of whome are on tour, as good as Monty in Australia. I believe Beer, O'Keefe, and O'Brien could all provide the same job that Monty Panesar provided. Two of them would add to Australia's batting and fielding.

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (February 27, 2013, 8:00 GMT)

Aus shouldn't repeat the mistake of announcing their XI well before the day of the match. You are only allowing ur opposition to prepare well.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:59 GMT)

Two spinners would have been better to share the work load. It might not have made a difference to the result of the test match.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:56 GMT)

my playing 11 for both the teams

australia- warner, edcowan, watson,clarke,henriques,maxwell,wade,starc,pattinson,lyon,doherty

india- sehwag,vijay,pujara,tendulkar,kohli,dhoni,jadeja,ashwin,bhajji,ojha,ishant.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:54 GMT)

How could they miss playing a second spinner? If Lyon is the best (which hes not! Holland is the best and injured while o keefe is next and out of favour) and went for 3/215 at 4.57 an over, you expect the addition of another spinner to provide different results? How? Even if he matches lyons wickets hall at a lower run rate he gets 3/150 (at best) and india are 6/350 before anyone else has been added to the attack. Fact: Aus quicks took 8/302 in the match at 2.9 an over. Aus spinners took 4/288 at 4.55 an over and you want to add more spinners to the lineup? Dropping the spinner and playing 4 quicks plus henriques would make more sense! No. Play a spinner (one spinner only) who can dry up the runs and let the quicks reap the benefits.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (February 27, 2013, 7:52 GMT)

@Aaron Croft, yes why? SOK would have added much more to this side than the leg side slider Doherty in terms of bowling, batting, and fielding. The way Beer has been bowling this year I am sure he could have performed as well as Monty Panesar. Come to think of it Aaron O'Brien would probably have been a better touring selection. Henriques has been unearthed and if Watson can't bowl he is not good enough to bat in the top five. I saw Wade's WI effort and he looks no more at ease here. I also think Faulkner's variety may have suited thes wickets.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:49 GMT)

@Test_Cricket_is_Better I believe that they have been watching England's progress, but the problem is that we simply don't have spinners of the quality of Panesar and Swann even on the fringe of the team atm.

The biggest bungle of these new selectors, IMO, is their decision to stop the 'spin cycle' and back one bowler. This in itself isn't a bad choice, but frankly they picked the wrong guy. Lyon had a fine debut but his average is hiking and he's looking more ordinary every Summer. Doherty is better, but there's a big question mark over whether he can take test wickets opposed to ODI. I'd be a big supporter for two spinners in the team if we had Hauritz and O'Keefe over there. As is, I understand why it's being seen as a gamble rather than a logical step.

Posted by Rogerunionjack on (February 27, 2013, 7:45 GMT)

Alan Border was a decent left arm spinner in his time, and Shane Warne is only semi-retired. Both are there right now doing commentary stints. Surely they couldn't do worse than 3/215 per innings? Or maybe check if the Portuguese have any spinners available?

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:43 GMT)

all Lyon needs to do is change his pace more & land the ball on a good length consistently, they talk about the ball coming into right handers above, which yes it can be great to make the batsman play, but if you're consistently a tad short, the Indians will just work you off their pads all day (as they did!) then when he pitched it up, he was a tad too full, the ball that got Sachin was perfect....

Posted by AdoSR on (February 27, 2013, 7:41 GMT)

Lyon got 3 for 215 people! Why would we want to double that to 6 for 430 or an innings of 537? That's a lost test match right there. Surely we need less spin, not more.

Posted by Meety on (February 27, 2013, 7:32 GMT)

@Aaron Croft on (February 27, 2013, 6:50 GMT) - goodness only knows. This is getting close to a scandal! It has been 18mths since he played a match for Oz (T20s). He has twice split his webbing in that time. Doherty is prefferred to SO'K in T20s, yet SO'K has a far better average & S/Rate - E/Rate is similar. Why not pick a bloke who is a better batsmen & bowler & fieldsmen? Head to head SO'K outperforms Doherty everywhere except in the 50 over format. Yet cannot get a look in. If Oz have a batting problem, you would think pickinag a bloke who is good enuff to be a specialist bowler, but is almost a top 6 batsmen, would be a good option, say batting at #8?

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 7:29 GMT)

They did play 2 spinners. Clarke also bowl some spin. Did he not win a test in australia against India with his spin or lack of spin??? No use putting in a spinner and he is not effective. More does not always mean better. Austalia are struggling with spinners after Warne and this is the reason for their decline in world cricket. They are also struggling against the spinning ball and need a plan to bat better against these indians. You need a plan against spin, cant just go out to bat.

Posted by KK47 on (February 27, 2013, 7:26 GMT)

Having followed India-Eng series closely, I cannot really see either Lyon or Doherty doing anywhere close to what Panesar and Swann. Lyon is inconsistent and just does not have enough variety to trouble Indian batsmen and Doherty is a sub-standard test bowler. Indians would be licking their lips to have a go at him. Also,Indians have pulled up their socks big time and they have understood they cannot win on reputation alone. Unless Aus can do something drastic, there is no hope. Chennai was an excellent test wicket though and Pattinson was very impressive. If he keeps fit for entire series, Aus may get one back. Good luck to them.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (February 27, 2013, 7:23 GMT)

Interesting that Arthur is talking about playing two spinners and then says "if [Lyon] plays in the next Test match". Lyon didn't have a great game but there are a lot of factors to consider. Firstly, he is relatively inexperienced and this is his first trip to India. It would have been nice to be an understudy the first time around but that's not to be. Secondly, he came up against some good players of spin and Dhoni in a mood. That's tough for anyone. Thirdly, while I didn't see a lot of it, what I've read suggests that he didn't get a lot of support from behind the stumps. Wade's also on his first trip to India but, especially if Australia play two spinners, he'll need to sharpen up when up to the stumps to improve Australia's chances. Australia also need more from their pacers, with even Pattinson not winding up being quite the destroyer that his early couple of short spells suggested he might be.

Posted by phunny_game on (February 27, 2013, 7:16 GMT)

I think selecting Doherty in place of siddle will make multidimensional attack and might be the best bet against India. A tear away fast bowler, a left arm seamer, henriques, and two spinners... I don't know why maxwell is so highly regarded...Haven't seen a solid contribution from him ever except that whirlwind 50 against windies...

Posted by TheGamerX on (February 27, 2013, 7:11 GMT)

Aus might look at bringing in another spinner, but it would end up playing into the hands of the Indians, especially with the quality of the top 6 batsmen against spin. They would do well to stick to their 3+1 pace-spin combination.

Posted by Naren on (February 27, 2013, 7:11 GMT)

Replace Starc with Johnson, Replace Hughes/Cowan/Watson with Maxwell and Lyon with Doherty. That would be a very strong team. Anyway Starc has to be rested as they don't want him to play back to back matches.

Posted by Always-positive on (February 27, 2013, 7:07 GMT)

It is only difficult because Australia hae no quality spinners otherwise they would auto include 2 spinners as England did in the 2nd test

Posted by VivGilchrist on (February 27, 2013, 7:03 GMT)

Doherty was a dumb selection full stop. The Chennai pitch had "play at least two spinners" written all over it, yet because X is such a poor bowler, they didn't want to take the risk. The fact is Clarke does not like OKeefe. He did not like Katich. Ponting did not like Hodge. If the captain doesn't like you, you don't get selected, even if your an obvious choice. So we are stuck with Doherty, a sub-standard first-class dart thrower. Also interested to read that Patto may be rested. Bravo.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

in hindsight probably they miss playing 2nd spinner. monty wasn't much rated before mumbai test but by including him in the 2nd test the complexion of the series went differently. australia look to try and play doherty in the 2nd test and leave out 1 fast bowler may be siddle or starc. this indian team is in transition phase and aussies are always a dangerous team inspite of the inexperienced they had. gud luck to both the teams and little more to india.

Posted by GopiKothandapani on (February 27, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

At the same time, It will be interesting to see what would be the indian bowling combination for Hyderabad test. I would prefer Ohja in place of Jadeja as we already have batting depth till B.Kumar.

Posted by   on (February 27, 2013, 6:50 GMT)

can someone please tell me why the selectors are ignoring steve o keefe? in first class cricket he avg 27 with the ball and 30 with the bat.... what is going on?

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Brydon CoverdaleClose
Brydon Coverdale Assistant Editor Possibly the only person to win a headline-writing award for a title with the word "heifers" in it, Brydon decided agricultural journalism wasn't for him when he took up his position with ESPNcricinfo in Melbourne. His cricketing career peaked with an unbeaten 85 in the seconds for a small team in rural Victoria on a day when they could not scrounge up 11 players and Brydon, tragically, ran out of partners to help him reach his century. He is also a compulsive TV game-show contestant and has appeared on half a dozen shows in Australia.
Tour Results
India v Australia at Delhi - Mar 22-24, 2013
India won by 6 wickets
India v Australia at Mohali - Mar 14-18, 2013
India won by 6 wickets
India v Australia at Hyderabad (Deccan) - Mar 2-5, 2013
India won by an innings and 135 runs
India v Australia at Chennai - Feb 22-26, 2013
India won by 8 wickets
India A v Australians at Chennai - Feb 16-18, 2013
Match drawn
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days