The Ashes 2013-14 November 30, 2013

Lehmann ponders Faulkner inclusion

112

James Faulkner looms as an addition to Australia's bowling attack for Adelaide while George Bailey may be demoted to drinks duty after only one match as the coach Darren Lehmann considers the best way to use his resources in the second Ashes Test without exhausting them before the third.

The hosts will assemble in Adelaide over the next 24 hours, Lehmann arriving early to take a first look at the oval's new drop-in pitch and also assess the new environs of a ground changed irrevocably by its conversion to an AFL-approved stadium.

Already the selectors and the team performance manager Pat Howard have drawn up plans to have reserve pacemen rested from the Sheffield Shield and on call for the third Test in Perth on the assumption that Adelaide's surface will require hard toil, having not deteriorated significantly in its domestic dress rehearsals.

But the selection of Faulkner as a bowling allrounder is another option they will weigh up, the better to allow the likes of Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle to operate in shorter spells so they stand a better chance of backing up successfully for the WACA ground. Faulkner's improving batting and reliable seam-up left-arm bowling offer an attractive package on a surface where batsmen have not been troubled by anything like the steepling bounce of the Gabba.

"I'm really happy with the 12 we have put together and the 11 did the job in Brisbane and now it's a case of working out what the best 11 is to get a result here," Lehmann said. "James brings a real competitive streak, he showed that at The Oval. He has done well to retain his place in the 12 from The Oval and was unlucky to miss out in Brisbane. He reverses the ball, he's got good control and he has a crack, which we like.

"We might have to come up with a few different plans, and that is just part and parcel of the different wickets you get around the country so that is no different for us, adapting to the different styles and we will have to play a different style this game but still be very aggressive in what we do. In Brisbane obviously it had some pace and bounce in it, Adelaide might be a bit different, but it might reverse a bit more and spin a bit more so we just have to sum that as we go. The key is first innings of both sides, making sure you make some big runs or limit the opposition."

Lehmann mentioned the improving fitness of Shane Watson as another key to preserving Harris in particular. Watson delivered only two overs of medium pace at the Gabba but will be more capable of stepping in with the ball in Adelaide, while he also seeks runs after looking a little out of sorts in Brisbane.

"Yes, if he's fully fit, he'll play. I have said that all along, we're not changing our stance on that. If he is fit to play, he will play," Lehmann said of Harris. "I reckon he is going to be fit, at the moment they're all fit, so we're okay. We have an advantage with Shane Watson bowling more this Test match, he didn't have to bowl as much as we thought in the last one, so that is an advantage as well, but Ryan is a key player."

Adelaide has recently indulged in a debate over South Australia's greatest song, and Lehmann said he was keen to ensure his men were not to become known as "one-hit wonders" after their success in Queensland. A 2-0 or even 1-0 scoreline entering the third Test at the WACA ground would provide the hosts with a hugely advantageous hand with three matches to play.

"It's just one Test match so we have got to play well, back that up, and show we're the side we want to become, not just one-hit wonders, if you like," Lehmann said. "Play a brand of cricket that is strong, competitive each and every day, each and every session, and if we do that, we know we will get the results. But we can't just rest on our laurels after one Test.

"As always, you enjoy celebrations after a success, and you should do, it's a tough game, as we know, and it has been a while since we won a Test match so it's good we have done that, we have achieved that, and now it's get ready for Adelaide. They will come back really hard, we know England are a good cricket team and we'll have to be ready to play."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • landl47 on November 30, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    Unless anyone is injured between now and the start of the test, why would anyone outside the 12 picked for the Gabba come in? Australia blew England away with pace and Lyon bowled extremely well, too. Watson plays if he is fit (and at the moment he is) so the only question is whether Faulkner comes in for Bailey.

    There is another possibility, though Lehmann doesn't mention it, and that is Faulkner coming in for Harris. Australia would be very happy with a draw at Adelaide and a fit Harris playing at the WACA. What they DON'T want is a draw at Adelaide and Harris not being able to come back on 3 days rest for Perth. He was looking tired and his pace was down at the end of the first test. He's 34 now and two tests with 3 days rest in between might be too much for him.

    I can see Aus resting Harris for one test and they'd prefer it to be Adelaide rather than Perth.

  • mukkas on December 3, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    Am I the only one who thinks Shane Watson is over rated? Why would you need Faulkner if Watson could reliably deliver four or five 3 overs spells during the course of an innings - without pulling a heart string? Maybe Faulkner should be in for Watson - he surely isn't going to do any worse with the bat, and better with the ball.

  • AussieSam on December 3, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Faulkner might only average 30 in first class cricket but he averages 23 with the ball. Surely that is good enough to be picked as an all-rounder. And let's not forget that if we were going solely on first class averages then Bailey wouldn't be picked at all. Like Bailey, Faulkner has shown in ODIs that he responds well to the pressure of playing international cricket, where he averages above 45. I do think that Bailey should come back for Perth but if Faulkner plays well again here, like he did in his debut at the Oval, then Australia find themselves in a good position of being able to pick either 6 batsmen with Bailey, or 5 and an all-rounder with Faulkner for good batting surfaces. Hopefully Bailey shows in this series that he is worthy of being in the top 6 in Test cricket because if does then we have a very solid squad to take to SA next year.

  • AussieSam on December 3, 2013, 11:34 GMT

    How can so many people think Watson should be dropped? He made 176 one Test ago. You don't drop a batsman who's just made 176. Yes, it was a long time coming and maybe he'll never make a century again but he has to at least be picked for the rest of the series. Also, his bowling in England wasn't just the stuff of a batsman who can bowl a bit. At one point he bowled I think 8 maidens out of 9 overs. The pressure that creates in a Test match is gold. I think the only reason he didn't get wickets was because England recognised that his bowling is one of Australia's strengths (one they aren't able to match) so they planned to play him conservatively as possible. Also there were a few times where catches didn't go to hand and he had very close lbw calls go against him. There is no way Watson will be dropped for Faulkner. That would be a worse selection decision than Lyon being dropped for Agar in England, and Doherty in India, which were both terrible decisions.

  • on December 3, 2013, 3:23 GMT

    Australian selectors seem to only watch international cricket and completely ignore the Sheffield Shield and County competitions.

    Having Watson, Bailey and Faulkner in a top 7 that has been underperforming and inconsistent as Australia have been is poor thinking. Australia were bailed out by Haddin and Johnson in the first test and batted freely in the second innings because they had such a big lead going in.

    Watson's bowling is more than useful, and justifies at least giving him as many chances as he's had, and he's been good at times, it's been a while since he's been consistent though, but there's no reason Australia can't win matches with only four bowlers and six batsmen, we've done it most of the time we've been playing Test cricket!

  • on December 3, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    England need Cook to stay long time at crease at least for 90 overs , with a set batsman at the top of order players like KP,Prior can fire . Cook vs Harris will decide the Adelaide test.

  • Wefinishthis on December 3, 2013, 2:22 GMT

    Faulkner is not an all-rounder. He is a bowler who is handy with the bat sometimes. How can an all-rounder be considered a batsmen when the has NEVER scored a single FC century, in fact not even a FC 90 and his average of 30 is inflated by the no. of not outs at the bottom of the order. His slogging in ODI's has been good so far and even then he's only scored 1 century in 38 innings. I'm a huge fan of his, but he is NOT a top 6 batsman! He is a bowler first and foremost and he should replace MJ or Siddle.

  • dutchy on December 2, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    This is MADNESS. We have weak batting so they want to replace a batsman with a player who averages 30 with the bat at first class level? This all rounder obsession helped destroy Australia in India (does anyone now think picking Henriques and Maxwell was a good decision?) It is insanity.

  • OzMongrel on December 2, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Faulkner, Watson and Lyon will be crucial in Adelaide. The first two first class games played on the new drop in pitches showed that guile was far more important than brute force - wickets fell to the spinners far more often than to the quicks. The English pace attack lacks true powers of deception, and may be found out, but Bresnan will not be easy to face on days 4&5. Very important toss to win, as on each of the fourth days in the two Shield matches played on the drop-in pitches the ball has started to do a bit here and there, which can only suggest that Day 5 will be it's usual difficult self in Adelaide. Either Swann or Lyon will be licking their chops. However, Mitchell seems to have remembered how to get nasty bounce out of flat wickets, so if he fires again, only rain will save England.

  • ScottStevo on December 2, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    @Chris_P, where are you peddling these rubbish stats from - and just how many times do I have to correct you on it...For starters, who cares about FC stats?! Seriously, when Watson has played only FC matches for Aus, you're including his warm up matches rather than just purely basing it on test matches, which is what we're concerned with. To that extent Watson averages 36 with the bat and around 60 with the ball. Push that out by a year and he averages 35 in the last 3 years with the ball. Oddly enough, I've thought Watson has bowled better recently than he ever has, but he's not been collecting anywhere near as many wickets although has become better economically. Returning to his batting, I'm surprised Watson's avg is even 35 the way that Arthur had him removed from opener (where he avgs 41) for Cowan then shifted him up and down the order like a yo-yo. He averages 51 @ 3, so maybe it's not too bad for him at all...But lets all say he's no good at 3.

  • landl47 on November 30, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    Unless anyone is injured between now and the start of the test, why would anyone outside the 12 picked for the Gabba come in? Australia blew England away with pace and Lyon bowled extremely well, too. Watson plays if he is fit (and at the moment he is) so the only question is whether Faulkner comes in for Bailey.

    There is another possibility, though Lehmann doesn't mention it, and that is Faulkner coming in for Harris. Australia would be very happy with a draw at Adelaide and a fit Harris playing at the WACA. What they DON'T want is a draw at Adelaide and Harris not being able to come back on 3 days rest for Perth. He was looking tired and his pace was down at the end of the first test. He's 34 now and two tests with 3 days rest in between might be too much for him.

    I can see Aus resting Harris for one test and they'd prefer it to be Adelaide rather than Perth.

  • mukkas on December 3, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    Am I the only one who thinks Shane Watson is over rated? Why would you need Faulkner if Watson could reliably deliver four or five 3 overs spells during the course of an innings - without pulling a heart string? Maybe Faulkner should be in for Watson - he surely isn't going to do any worse with the bat, and better with the ball.

  • AussieSam on December 3, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Faulkner might only average 30 in first class cricket but he averages 23 with the ball. Surely that is good enough to be picked as an all-rounder. And let's not forget that if we were going solely on first class averages then Bailey wouldn't be picked at all. Like Bailey, Faulkner has shown in ODIs that he responds well to the pressure of playing international cricket, where he averages above 45. I do think that Bailey should come back for Perth but if Faulkner plays well again here, like he did in his debut at the Oval, then Australia find themselves in a good position of being able to pick either 6 batsmen with Bailey, or 5 and an all-rounder with Faulkner for good batting surfaces. Hopefully Bailey shows in this series that he is worthy of being in the top 6 in Test cricket because if does then we have a very solid squad to take to SA next year.

  • AussieSam on December 3, 2013, 11:34 GMT

    How can so many people think Watson should be dropped? He made 176 one Test ago. You don't drop a batsman who's just made 176. Yes, it was a long time coming and maybe he'll never make a century again but he has to at least be picked for the rest of the series. Also, his bowling in England wasn't just the stuff of a batsman who can bowl a bit. At one point he bowled I think 8 maidens out of 9 overs. The pressure that creates in a Test match is gold. I think the only reason he didn't get wickets was because England recognised that his bowling is one of Australia's strengths (one they aren't able to match) so they planned to play him conservatively as possible. Also there were a few times where catches didn't go to hand and he had very close lbw calls go against him. There is no way Watson will be dropped for Faulkner. That would be a worse selection decision than Lyon being dropped for Agar in England, and Doherty in India, which were both terrible decisions.

  • on December 3, 2013, 3:23 GMT

    Australian selectors seem to only watch international cricket and completely ignore the Sheffield Shield and County competitions.

    Having Watson, Bailey and Faulkner in a top 7 that has been underperforming and inconsistent as Australia have been is poor thinking. Australia were bailed out by Haddin and Johnson in the first test and batted freely in the second innings because they had such a big lead going in.

    Watson's bowling is more than useful, and justifies at least giving him as many chances as he's had, and he's been good at times, it's been a while since he's been consistent though, but there's no reason Australia can't win matches with only four bowlers and six batsmen, we've done it most of the time we've been playing Test cricket!

  • on December 3, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    England need Cook to stay long time at crease at least for 90 overs , with a set batsman at the top of order players like KP,Prior can fire . Cook vs Harris will decide the Adelaide test.

  • Wefinishthis on December 3, 2013, 2:22 GMT

    Faulkner is not an all-rounder. He is a bowler who is handy with the bat sometimes. How can an all-rounder be considered a batsmen when the has NEVER scored a single FC century, in fact not even a FC 90 and his average of 30 is inflated by the no. of not outs at the bottom of the order. His slogging in ODI's has been good so far and even then he's only scored 1 century in 38 innings. I'm a huge fan of his, but he is NOT a top 6 batsman! He is a bowler first and foremost and he should replace MJ or Siddle.

  • dutchy on December 2, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    This is MADNESS. We have weak batting so they want to replace a batsman with a player who averages 30 with the bat at first class level? This all rounder obsession helped destroy Australia in India (does anyone now think picking Henriques and Maxwell was a good decision?) It is insanity.

  • OzMongrel on December 2, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Faulkner, Watson and Lyon will be crucial in Adelaide. The first two first class games played on the new drop in pitches showed that guile was far more important than brute force - wickets fell to the spinners far more often than to the quicks. The English pace attack lacks true powers of deception, and may be found out, but Bresnan will not be easy to face on days 4&5. Very important toss to win, as on each of the fourth days in the two Shield matches played on the drop-in pitches the ball has started to do a bit here and there, which can only suggest that Day 5 will be it's usual difficult self in Adelaide. Either Swann or Lyon will be licking their chops. However, Mitchell seems to have remembered how to get nasty bounce out of flat wickets, so if he fires again, only rain will save England.

  • ScottStevo on December 2, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    @Chris_P, where are you peddling these rubbish stats from - and just how many times do I have to correct you on it...For starters, who cares about FC stats?! Seriously, when Watson has played only FC matches for Aus, you're including his warm up matches rather than just purely basing it on test matches, which is what we're concerned with. To that extent Watson averages 36 with the bat and around 60 with the ball. Push that out by a year and he averages 35 in the last 3 years with the ball. Oddly enough, I've thought Watson has bowled better recently than he ever has, but he's not been collecting anywhere near as many wickets although has become better economically. Returning to his batting, I'm surprised Watson's avg is even 35 the way that Arthur had him removed from opener (where he avgs 41) for Cowan then shifted him up and down the order like a yo-yo. He averages 51 @ 3, so maybe it's not too bad for him at all...But lets all say he's no good at 3.

  • on December 2, 2013, 16:00 GMT

    effing drop watson, keep bailey and add faulkner...man wat do these guys get paid for if not make sane decsisions

  • on December 2, 2013, 11:04 GMT

    Leave it the way it is. The real question is what England will do with their 11. Seriously, these next two days are going to take forever! Start the cricket already!

  • Green_and_Gold on December 2, 2013, 10:54 GMT

    @Landle47 - fair comments. I can see why Aus will play their best side - it gives em the best chance to win and points of the board now mean more than potential ones later. We were wrong about the Gabba pitch (in regards to how it would play and what was a good score) so we cant just assume that SA will be a run fest - a few good overs and wickets could change everything. Play the strongest and adapt if players become unavailable. Manage them in the game. (like the idea of adding Faulks and bowling Harris in smaller sharper spells). Hopfully we will go into Perth 2-0 up with real fire in the belly to close the series out. Would love to see MJ bowling rapid to take the series win in Perth.

  • Kart_in_Quartz on December 2, 2013, 9:59 GMT

    How about Faulkner for Watson? An all-rounder for an "all-rounder"! ... In my view, it would be unfair to drop Bailey at this moment and to continue the momentum Aussies are in. Rather, drop a person who has not been contributing for too long and let him merit his place back in the side.

    Agreed Watson is a match winner and takes the game away completely on his day. But it is surely not worth the wait in perpetuity waiting for that one big game to happen. Besides, Faulkner for sure deserves a chance in the playing XI.

  • Saishwat on December 2, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    I still don't understand why Faulkner is replacing Bailey. In an already fragile batting line-up, you are replacing a batsman with an bowling allrounder. What in the earth are you thinking?

  • Big-Dog on December 2, 2013, 8:00 GMT

    If Faulkner replaces anyone, surely it has to be Watson. His batting has dropped away to nothing & he can't bowl. Bailey can only improve whilst Watson's performance is on the wane.

  • joseyesu on December 2, 2013, 6:34 GMT

    Same think happened for Indian team, where Rohit Sharma a middle order batsman has replaced Vijay in Champions tropy and he is now doing wonders. But not a FAIR one to me.

  • Ms.Cricket on December 2, 2013, 6:03 GMT

    Why are Australia complaining about the schedule that Cricket Australia have devised? Is this going to be the story every season? I think in the last few years Australian cricketers or more correctly CA have gone soft and want a rest based on assumptions that most other teams do not care a bit about. I have not heard England talking of resting Anderson or Broad for Adelaide.

  • Macker60 on December 2, 2013, 5:56 GMT

    Okay I have said this all along, According to the Adelaide ovals curator Damian Hough, It will be a Typical Adelaide Wicket that will take Pace, He recommends not taking 2 spinners into the game, Australia Needs to play its best bowlers on Adelaide, to keep England on the Back foot, It will be easier finding Back up Bowler for the Gabba than for Adelaide. And Boof knows this That is why he was thinking of the extra seamer, SO when the Wicket has more bounce than expected don't be surprises, remember Adelaide last 17 test have resulted in 15 results 2 draws due to bad weather. It is a Result Wicket,

  • on December 2, 2013, 4:17 GMT

    If Australia play Faulkner;which I think they should then it should be for the purpose of taking over all Watson's bowling responsibilities or at least 90%. If Faulkner can make some useful batting contributions at 7 and break some useful partnerships and/or tie up an end with the ball, it will clear up a lot of confusion at the selection table in the long term and free up Watson to concentrate purely on batting whilst also being able to hold him accountable strictly for this skill alone. In a long bowling innings; Australia's attack in the middle overs should revolve around Siddle, Lyon and Faulkner (if selected) with Harris and Johnson being short spell impact/newball bowlers. To be able to keep Lyon on, bowling in long spells would be an achievement in it's own right and should pay dividends, however if KP and Co start to take Lyon to the cleaners then Faulkner would make a very handy temporary fallback.Australia would feel good if they were to restrict England to a sub 350 score.

  • WeirPicki on December 2, 2013, 4:12 GMT

    Faulkner??? Goodness me, they really want England to have a chance don't they?

  • Chris_P on December 1, 2013, 22:18 GMT

    @Wefinishthis. What you meant to say is Watson is "supposed to be a batting allrounder", The facts are, that in fc cricket for the past 3 years, Faulkner's batting average is about 5 or 6 greater than Watson's so by your theory, Faulkner deserves to be there before him? Not saying he should be there, more like Watson shouldn't be there based on form.

  • Shaggy076 on December 1, 2013, 19:20 GMT

    Kensohatter; I can't see the England being a certainty at Sydney. We have crushed India and Sri Lanka two spin dominant teams in the last few years. England have been a mediocre batting side for some time now an we should not fear them on any pitch.

  • Wefinishthis on December 1, 2013, 14:12 GMT

    If you drop a batsman for an all-rounder, they should be dropped for a batting all-rounder. Faulkner is a BOWLER who can bat a bit so that's not his role. He is handy with a bat, but certainly not at a no.6 or even a no.7 level of quality. Now Watson is a batting all-rounder (just a very poor one) and he should be the one to take overs from the other four bowlers, but he's already in the top 6, so why weaken the top 6 with TWO poor batsmen? That sounds like a very weak batting lineup to me. Don't get me wrong, I think Faulkner is outstanding so much so that even though MJ bowled well in Brisbane, I still would have picked Faulkner instead. Now we're due for the useless Johnson in Adelaide to get cartered around the park by Cook. I'd drop Johnson or rest Harris for Faulkner if anything.

  • AussieSam on December 1, 2013, 12:32 GMT

    Two reasons why Harris has to play in Adelaide:

    1. If Australia can win this Test then they are almost guaranteed to win the series and having Harris in the bowling attack is always going to make them more likely to win.

    2. Although it is obviously ideal to have him play both Adelaide and Perth, I would say that it is more crucial to have him on a pitch that offers less to bowlers.

    I think it's unwise to go into a Test without your best bowler and aim for just a draw. I'm glad that Lehmann has said that only the best 11 will play and that he's not interested in any rotation policy. We know that bowling England out twice will be difficult on this pitch, and this is why Faulkner should play. He is an accurate enough bowler to bowl long spells and take some of the burden off Watson and Siddle, allowing Harris and Johnson to bowl the short attacking spells while hopefully picking up a wicket or two himself. And he is a genuine all-rounder who looked very comfortable in his debut.

  • milepost on December 1, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    I still don't get it here? Australia own England now, of course they can win here, probably inside 4 days too. Hasn't anyone noticed how bad England are right now?

  • on December 1, 2013, 11:33 GMT

    landl97 ..... the inclusion of either Faulkner or Cutting would be perfect.

    Either of them are capable of batting as well as Bailey and these two will take the pressure off Watson / Siddle / Johnson / Harris.

    Good idea!!

  • OneEyedAussie on December 1, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    I find it almost unbelievable that a test team with only four specialist batsmen could be entertained again. This formula has never worked! Look at the results in India. If Faulkner comes in it has to be for Watson.

    If Australia bat long they have an opportunity to force an injury to either Anderson or Broad. If either of those get injured I doubt England will be able to compete in Melbourne or Perth.

  • runout49 on December 1, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    Bird bowled 13 overs 2/20 in Hobart Grade cricket this weekend.

  • runout49 on December 1, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    There is no need to change the eleven. Its a new pitch in Adelaide so who knows for sure how it will play. Australia's pace attack has the mental advantage over the England batting. If one of the three is too tired to play back to back tests then Bird and or Pattinson can come into the team.

  • on December 1, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    Watson has just come out and said he will be fit to bowl and i hope he is serious as he will be expected to bowl a lot of overs. If not, Faulkner should take his spot. With 4 quicks I can't see the point in adding a 5th. Surely a 2nd spinner like Fawad or OKeefe can come in.

  • kensohatter on December 1, 2013, 8:29 GMT

    @Macker and Dunger. In my opinion Australia have the advantage in Perth (bounce) and England the advantage in Sydney (spin with Swann/Paneser). Lets assume that each team takes those venues. Gabba is gone to Aust therefor to win back the urn Aust must take 1 of either Adelaide or Melb. My prob with going all out at Adel is that you risk the win at Perth. Honestly if I had my way I wouldnt even try and win adelaide. Id pick 11 batsmen and bat for 4 days for the draw. Its boring cricket but i dont care I want the urn back. Englands bowlers would be run absolutley ragged! 4 days of bowling in adelaide heat at 11 specialist batsmen. A draw and then a win in Perth would leave us 2-0 with 2 to play. With Adnerson/ Broad and Swann with 100 overs each under their belt. England must from that point play for a win.... any weather or draws hand us the urn. It obviously wont happen instead we will lose 3-1

  • RVC-38 on December 1, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    @ Chris_P on (December 1, 2013, 7:45 GMT) all true Chris, but I was not stating a case for Watson, I just cannot understand the push for Faulkner with a f/c batting ave of 30.52 and list A of 35. we are not in need of bowlers if Bird, Pattinson and co where fit, Johnson would not have played the first test we need batsman, so if Watson goes bring in Hughes and let Bailey play.

  • on December 1, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    What has Watson done lately/ever when it mattered? The only time he contributes is when the series is lost or the game is going to be rained out? He's injured the rest of the time. We wouldn't be any worse off if Johnson took his spot as a bowling all rounder instead of Watson as a batting all rounder. Johnson only has 2 less international test centuries than Watson :)

  • inefekt on December 1, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    Hmmm, strengthen a bowling attack that skittled England for under 200 twice in Brisbane while weakening a batting lineup that has lost its first five wickets for 175 runs or less in 15 out of 22 test innings so far in 2013. Yeah, makes sense.

  • milepost on December 1, 2013, 7:51 GMT

    @landl47, good comments but I disagree they'd be happy with a draw. With our bowling attack owning England the way they do right now we really should expect another big win. Remember England have not been making runs against any bowling this summer, they are terrible and their bowling is worse. I'm not happy about it, I genuinely wanted a good contest but I suspect it won't be against this England team. I do agree with your logic on Faulkner but Lehmann says if players are fit they play. There is that sporting saying that you do exactly what the opposition would least like and I think being blown away by the same bowling is what they would least like. We have the skill to take 20 wickets on any wicket.

  • Chris_P on December 1, 2013, 7:45 GMT

    @rickyvoncanterbury. For the past 3 years, Watson's fc batting average is less than 30 & bowling average is more than 40. The same period, Faulkner's batting average is greater than 30 & bowling average is almost half of Watson's with almost double the wickets. Forget the short form, it means squat in real cricket without form. Simply stated, Watson shouldn't be there based on current fc form.

  • on December 1, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    Glad to see a lot of modern cricketers take fitness seriously like in most other sports. Contrary to popular belief cricket does take a lot out of you and demands a lot from your body. For a bowler as stout as Ryan Harris it is always going to be difficult to play a lot of test cricket and remain fit. Even Shane Watson while he appears not very bulky can certainly do with knocking off a few kgs. And it isn't just about weight. Players should work on training muscles too at least at a basic level. Michael Clarke, weight wise appears completely fit but has a weak back which maybe a result of lack of proper training of the muscle coupled with bad luck. With a new, modern approach towards fitness in cricket i'm hoping players in the future will be able to weather all the beatings their body takes in intense test matches and numerous shorter format games played these days.

  • FazleAbed on December 1, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    Australia should have a balance side. Just to remind, English attack is also a very good attack. We cant expect Haddin and Mitch will score 50 every time. Australia could have all out 175 in the first innings at Gabba. Now Baily had a bad game. But some should be given opportunity to play at least 3-5 test to set one of the most important position in test batting order. at 5 & 6 australia have two t20 specialist Smith and Baily. Who are hard worker and earn their position in the test side as Warner did. Australia must give enough opportunity to this players. Again if Mitch, Harris and Siddle along with Lyon cant break england Flukner will not. Only place Flukner can take now is the place of 1 of the Fast bowler. I believe in that manner Strac is better. also Pattinson and Cummings. Flukner can be like Razzak of Pakistan, not fit for test cricket but good in t20 and odi. Smith,Baily, Cullumn, Voges and Dolan at 5-6 spot of test team.

  • Macker60 on December 1, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    kensohatter Yes you do need a bowler that will bowl for long periods, However if you want to win at Adelaide you need Genuine Pace, Siddle, Lyon, Smith, and Maybe Faulkner with Watson chipping in will fill the Stock, But if you don't have a Johnston and Harris Type of Bowler, You will not Win at Adelaide. Seen a lot of Games at Adelaide and have seen the last 2, The oval will not favor average bowlers. Not matter what they think it trending towards a Typical Adelaide Pitch. Unless a team self destructs, it will be a 5 Day game, With the team that has the best Bowling attack winning the game, And Boof knows it

  • RVC-38 on December 1, 2013, 4:53 GMT

    Warner, Rodgers. Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Harris, Lyon. on standby Faulkner, Bailey,

  • RVC-38 on December 1, 2013, 4:25 GMT

    It is funny that a lot of people say Watson is not test class but is a fantastic short form player, so they want Faulkner in because he was fantastic in India playing short form cricket.

  • jimbond on December 1, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Australia should take out of BCCI's book, and give a few farewell tests to Katich and Mike Hussey. If these two can replace Watson and Bailey, it will be tough for England to claw back.

  • disco_bob on December 1, 2013, 3:23 GMT

    @landl47, I don't agree that Australia would be happy with a draw at Adelaide, seeing as a win there would put them on course for a rare 5-0 whitewash which would go a long way to alleviating the hurt over the past 3 Ashes.

  • cricketsubh on December 1, 2013, 3:15 GMT

    i agree with u maawan watson should droped in the 2nd test and fulkner should play at on6 and fulkner can bat and bowl which his shows in india and ability to score 100 also my team for 2nd test ,1.warner.2.rogers.3.smith.4.clarke.5.berly.6.fulkner.7.haddin.8.lyon.9.jhonson.10.haris.11.siddil.

  • on December 1, 2013, 2:15 GMT

    An interesting dilemma: If the selectors rest Harris for Faulkner, then Faulkner and Bailey both perform well while Watson doesn't; is it too soon in his career to play Faulkner as the bowling allrounder? I think not. Watson has done reasonably well over his career, but at 32 and with ongoing injuries, his stats and longevity are not compelling at Test level. He must bowl to hold his place. The No 3 spot is then a problem. It is time for the Phil Hughes experiment to resume, and give the guy a fair go.

  • RJHB on December 1, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    Rubbish Landl47, you mean England would be happy with a draw in Adelaide! Australia do not need to go into a test thinking its just going to be hard slog and a draw the only result. That's crazy and likely to surrender the initiative to the poms. It's that kind of submissiveness that's has hampered Australia moving on from the grand era. No. Go hard, keep the foot on England's throat, go for the win and ou never know. Shield results don't mean diddly squat to the test match, only fools would think so.

  • CamH on December 1, 2013, 1:10 GMT

    If the pitch in the test is consistent with those in the Shield so far this season then there could be an argument for a horses for courses policy, especially given the three day turn around. Remembering also that England still has some absolute class in the batting line up so the expectation would be that even if Australia were to win in Adelaide they will need to bowl a lot of overs. My gut feel would be to save Harris for Adelaide where he could be an absolute match winner so I would bring in Faulkner for him and make Faulkner almost the designated workhorse of the attack. I would also like to have a second spin option that takes it away from the right handlers and strengthen the batting as much as possible to do as much as we can to make the draw the worst possible result. To achieve this I would bring Cameron White in at number 6 with an expectation of 15 overs per innings. So it is Warner, Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Smith, White, Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson, Siddle, Lyon.

  • Craptastic on December 1, 2013, 0:56 GMT

    @KARNAWAT33: I agree with just about everything you say but Watson has played his entire test career due to his reputation/potential. Agree he is a fantastic limited overs all-rounder but not at test level - he simply hasn't delivered.

    I think he is more of a Kallis type player at test level - a top order batsman who can bowl 1-2 short spells a day as opposed to a Bravo type player who is a genuine all rounder. And like Kallis now he should be a strike bowler not a stock bowler, he does have a knack of taking wickets. But if he can't score runs he shouldn't play.

  • featurewriter on December 1, 2013, 0:51 GMT

    Maawan "I think Watson should be dropped from test team..He is just a useless 20,30s sort of player and his bowling is also not helping Australia"...I guess you've already forgotten his 176 in the test match just before this one. Watson is a better all-rounder than Flintoff ever was (his stats alone across all formats clearly illustrate that) and yet he is always receiving criticism from supporters of the game. The guy is gifted. Let's leave it at that.

  • on December 1, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    I don't get it, we've already got a fifth bowling option in Shane Watson, now we're going to add a sixth? Furthermore, apart from having four pacemen in the side already, all four of them can bat, with Watson being a batting all rounder, so why would we need to automatically think we need yet another all rounder?

    Is James Faulkner really considered to be a better bowler than Luke Butterworth or Doug Bollinger? He's usually Tasmania's third best bowler behind Ben Hilfenhaus and Luke Butterworth, Hilfy's injured again now.

    I don't mind them resting Harris, and I'm not saying Faulkner's not a good bowler, but he's being picked based on his batting and not because he's the top paceman in the Shield, which he's not. Hell he's not even opening bowler for his state!

  • ToneMalone on November 30, 2013, 23:59 GMT

    I'm for swapping Bailey with Faulkner, probably just for this Test. It makes for a pretty short specialist batting line-up, but one other pro is the strong batting form of Haddin which reduces the risk of a longer tail. Agree with @landl47 - whatever the solution, having Harris fit for Perth is an absolute must.

  • dunger.bob on November 30, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    @ kensohatter: Not a crazy idea to rest Johnson for Perth from the point of view of saving our powder for Perth. It's a viable way to go but not the way I'd do it.

    Personally I think we should hit them with everything we've got and knock them onto their knees BEFORE Perth if we can. There's no doubt there're shaky and this is the time to drive a few more nails into them. I just think that taking the pressure off now and saving it for Perth is too cute and funky for our own good. We don't need them getting any confidence back is another way of putting it.

    Both teams have got some tough decisions to make. It's going to be very interesting to see who comes up with the right mix for this particular job.

  • riahcmra on November 30, 2013, 23:27 GMT

    If England play 2 fulltime spinners - Bailey will play. If they play 1 spinner I reckon Faulkner will play. Pretty noticeable that Aussie middle order all use their feet well to spinners - Lehmann won't weaken the middle order if England play 2 spinners. The teams must be announced before the coin toss ... for obvious reasons. So I think the choice will come down to England's decision ...

  • kensohatter on November 30, 2013, 23:10 GMT

    @Macker Adelaide will be an absolute road that will take disciplined bowling on a good length to take wickets. Johnson simply wont get the bounce he did at Adelaide making him vunerable. I know it wont happen they will pick him I just think Australia need to approach this test with the series in mind. Johnsons performance is built on confidence if he bowls on a road and the poms get on top of him you marginalise his ability to have man of the match performances at Perth and Melb. You also then risk the health of Harris and Siddle both of whom are critical to the regaining of the urn. You need bowlers who can bowl tight long spells in adelaide. A loss is not the worst result australia can achieve in adelaide. If they win but lose the effectiveness of johnson and cant play harris or siddle in the remaining tests they will lose the urn (remember a drawn series for australia will not be enough). Id prefer a draw in adelaide with fully fit team going to Perth.

  • HatsforBats on November 30, 2013, 22:49 GMT

    @Dylan Young, got your wires crossed, not saying Agar will get selected, just that O'Keefe most definitely will not.

  • RVC-38 on November 30, 2013, 22:29 GMT

    So with Boof Lehmann declaring the rotation policy dead and buried, if you are fit you play, one can only assume that Watson is 100% fit and could bowl 15 overs if needed. so with MJ, Siddle, Harris, Lyon, Watson, and Smith, and using Clarke and Warner on the forth and fifth day if needed, Australia does not need another all rounder like Faulkner.... top order collapses are still vivid in my memory, so in my mind it is either Hughes for Bailey or leave things alone

  • on November 30, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    Unsure why we would change a winning team. Suspect this is just a method to keep Faulkner's morale up but can't see him getting a game unless a bowler is injured.

  • Gaswell on November 30, 2013, 21:57 GMT

    Watson should make way for Faulkner. The time for potential with Watson has long since passed. He simply does not come off often enough. Bailey deserves a series to see if he can adjust to test cricket the way he did in the shorter form.

  • RVC-38 on November 30, 2013, 21:47 GMT

    Just saw on fox sports news Boof says, If your fit you play, no rotation policy. Harris will play.

  • milepost on November 30, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    It's really funny how people base their knowledge and comments on assumptions. 1. It will be a batting wicket therefore England are guaranteed to be in the match as they have an automatic right to score runs? Nope. 2. Harris is 34 so can't bowl without his walking frame. Nope. 3. Let's chuck form out the window, who cares if England have been awful for years, they will mop the floor with the Aussies. Nope. Their tour is over.

  • Mayaro_Man on November 30, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    That is a good plan for this Test. Bailey can come back in the next match. Aussie need to do whatever is necessary to knock that English team off their arrogant perch.

  • Clavers on November 30, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    Australia should stick with the same 6-man attack that performed superbly in the Gabba test. Test cricket requires 90 overs be bowled each day. Very conservatively, if Johnson and Siddle bowl 20 overs each, Lyon 25 and Harris 15, that would leave just 10 overs to be covered by Watson and Smith.

    Siddle and Johnson are two of the fittest bowlers around. Watson will have had nearly two more weeks of recovery since Brisbane. Lyon can bowl a lot more than he did in Brisbane. Watson will be good for 8 to 10 overs a day and Smith considerably more if he goes well.

  • on November 30, 2013, 19:12 GMT

    I don't get it. either watson is fit enough so he can bowl or he needs to be d dropped in favor of Faulkner. without bowling, watson doesn't make yhe 11 on batting alone, simple. why should we make Bailey suffer for no reason? if anything, Bailey is in form and a much better chance of scoring big than watson.

  • KARNAWAT33 on November 30, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    Shane Watson is a quality player and there is absolutely no doubt that he is one of the finest all rounders in world cricket at the moment, if not the best. I agree he is going through a rough patch and maybe he is a better No.6 in tests but he is one player who deserves his place in the side on reputation a little longer than others. As far as the Faulkner dilemma is concerned; it is simple, Ryan Harris cannot play two back to back test matches in the gap of three days even if the venues are Perth (2nd) and Adelaide (3rd) respectively. Australia are 1-0 up in the series and Adelaide will be tough NOT impossible to get a result out of. Playing Faulkner in Harris' place is a very sensible option looking at Perth coming right after three days of a grueling test. Also, Boof said, he's like a humongous 1st innings score in Adelaide and Jimmy can bat, so why not give the bloke a chance!? Warner, Rogers, Watto, Clarke, Smith, Bailey, Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson, Siddle and Lyon! PERFECT :)

  • on November 30, 2013, 19:06 GMT

    No need to change the winning eleven go with the same team

  • on November 30, 2013, 18:33 GMT

    no disrespect what will Boof select as i strongly believe he knows his job and he knows how to win.... it will be harsh if bailey missed out as he is in tremendous form but if faulkner is selected in place of bailey ( as i know watto wouldn't be dropped and obviously he isn't 100% fit ) that will reduce the workload of MJ and Ryno.... but the selectors must ensured Bailey that he will be the automatic selection for PERTH..... all the best to the Aussies.....

  • maawan on November 30, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    I think Watson should be dropped from test team..He is just a useless 20,30s sort of player and his bowling is also not helping Australia..I knew from the beginning that this experiment will fail..A proper test batsman should play instead of him and Faulkner should be given chance over Bailey i.e. another wrong selection..

  • CodandChips on November 30, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    Give him a go. Harris, Siddle and Johnson would be able to bowl out our batsmen on the flattest Indian pitches. Faulkner can lighten the load. Play him instead of Watson. It's not as if England will be able to skittle out the Aussie batsmen.

  • on November 30, 2013, 15:42 GMT

    The assumption is a draw. And that's dangerous. Are there no second spinners around ? Faulkner should play in place of Watson for this match. If Harris needs to be rested then one from pattinson, cimmins, Michael, or any other fast bowler should be tried out. Bailey did well in India and dropping him could hurt his confidence. Cook is the main man for England. Get him early and they will struggle. Keep them down as they have shown the ability to fight back.

  • runout49 on November 30, 2013, 14:59 GMT

    Watson should only play if he can bat and bowl. He is not good enough to be in the team just as a batsman. So assuming he plays, Australia has potentially 8 bowlers if Smith, Clarke and Warner roll their arm over. So why play Faulkner at the expense of a batsman ?

  • Thefakebook on November 30, 2013, 14:50 GMT

    I think this greatly unfair to George,he is good player he should be given at least a full 5 test,if any thing Faulkner should come in for the injury prone veteran Harris!

  • cnksnk on November 30, 2013, 14:02 GMT

    The entire logic of this is strange. Firstly the groundsman does not prepare a sporting wicket and hence there is fear that the test will last 5 days and each bowler may have to bowl around 60 - 70 overs in the test match. Given that test matches are supposed to last 5 days, one is surprised at the fear of the fast bowlers either Harris or MJ breakin down. The players have not expressed any of the fear but every one else seems to be fretting over it. If a bowler irrespective of his class cannot last a normal length of a test match then he should be playing another role or another sport. In addition there seems to be the obvious that has been lost sight off. Australia's batting is nothing to write home about. In the previous test there was a collapse in the 1 st innings and it was left to MJ and Haddin to pull the fat out of the fire. In the second innings also only MC and Warner scored. So Australia will be best served by retaining a stronger batting and the bowling is fine as is..

  • xtrafalgarx on November 30, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    Don't really see why we would consider Faulkner if Watson is fully fit as has been reported. That would be 6/7 bowling options! They should have left Faulkner play in the shield match for Tasmania otherwise he might do a khawaja and lose all form while being a glorified 12th man.

  • on November 30, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    @HatsforBats - I'll bet my house against your's mate. There is absolutely no chance Agar is considered for selection.

  • BRUTALANALYST on November 30, 2013, 13:26 GMT

    I don't see why not if Aus want to really take the attack to England I'm sure they'll want the extra bowler here and try secure the 2-0 lead back to back. Not like Faulkener is a mug with the bat either as he showed in India so it's not even that big a risk.

  • anton1234 on November 30, 2013, 13:25 GMT

    Australia should do everything in their power between now and the Adelaide test to ensure the strip they are going to be using is pacy and bouncy as possible. If they can't do both, I would try to make it as fast as possible. Aussie seamers are a good 5-10 mph quicker and it is time to take advantage.

  • HatsforBats on November 30, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    @Chris_P, I don't think Agar will play any time soon either, but I'm positive he'll play before O'Keefe!

  • Chris_P on November 30, 2013, 12:27 GMT

    @Macker60. The 2 games already played at Adelaide were not on this strip. This strip has been un-used in fc cricket so anything can happen. No one kows for certainty how it will play this far out. It's all speculation. @ HatsforBats I doubt Agar will be given a run in the near future, he is still on a learning path & is very much down on the list of wicket takers this season with 10 in 5 matches to date. In fact the 4 leading wicket takers are all spinners (SO'Keefe, Botha, Boyce & Doherty).

  • Naren on November 30, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    If England include both Swann and Panesar, which could be very challenging for Australia. Hope they play them well. I don't think Australia has enough spin options to go with two spinners. Hope Smith can bowl a few good overs.

  • RandyOZ on November 30, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    Great selection to include the devastating Faulkner

  • Front-Foot-Lunge.. on November 30, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    @kensohatter, drop Johnson? Why would the Aussies do that? He blew us away with bat and ball. Our team, especially the tail have actual nightmares about him. He doesn't just rely on bounce, a good number of his wickets were full balls with the short one being used in plans against our batsman susceptible to short stuff, almost the whole team. 90mph+ is scary when it is full too.

  • Macker60 on November 30, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    kensohatter Your forgetting one point, the ground keeper at Adelaide strongly believes this pitch will suit Johnston. Remember there have only been 2 games on the current strip, However they have use the same soil that's has been used for over 50 years, It will be a Typical 5 day Adelaide Oval True pace will be an Advantage, May Spin late on the 4th and 5th day, There will be bounce for the Blowers that bend there backs.

  • anton1234 on November 30, 2013, 11:36 GMT

    I might have also been tempted to go with Cutting. He is sort of an all rounder. Him and Johnson could up to a number 6, and at the same provide Australia 4 out-and-out quicks for the match. He is also 6ft4 and could gain extra bounce on the Adelaide surface.

  • HatsforBats on November 30, 2013, 11:20 GMT

    @VivGilchrist, if they pick a left arm offie, I'll bet my house it isn't O'Keefe. Agar has runs and wickets in shield and O'Keefe is cursed.

    @disco_bob, I think you might be right.

  • CM1000 on November 30, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    I completely agree that Faulkner should play in Adelaide. You would have to think at this stage that Australia will win this series IF they can keep Harris, MJ and Siddle on the field (with all the Test-experienced young quicks - Starc, Pattinson, Cummins and Bird - all out injured or trying to come back from injury). While MJ was lethal at the Gabba, Harris is the key, and he has a history of injuries. aybe that has turned the corner a bit after four Tests in a row in England, but wasn't that the first time he has played more than two in a row in a series? And remember what happened last year in Adelaide, when Pattinson broke down early in the match, which not only cost Australia a win with only two quicks left, but also meant that Siddle and Hilfenhaus were unable to play in Perth a few days later. It also meant that Clarke had to bowl 25 overs at Adelaide last year, which you definitely don't want your only world-class batman with a dodgy back doing.

  • Dazako on November 30, 2013, 11:08 GMT

    So its settled then Bailey stays in and drop Watson for Faulkner. Job done.

    The only issue there is who bats at 3, I agree wit bonehead maz and think maybe North or White on form as they can bowl a bit and the form they are in is incredable. North has almost 600 runs this season as opener so he gets my nod.

    The question I have is who is responsible for the scheduling of such a large gap between Bris and Adelaide tests and such a short gap between Adelaide and Perth?

  • kensohatter on November 30, 2013, 11:06 GMT

    Call me crazy but I would drop Johnson for this test... now before people go nuts hear me out. Johnson derives wickets from bounce (adelaide will provide none). He is also a confidence bowler so if england get on top of him on a flat wicket you jepordise his ability to dominate at Perth and melb. He is also not economical so if he doesnt get wickets from bounce we will be expensive creating added work for harris and siddle. I would play O'Keefe and Faulkner giving the poms two new bowlers to deal with.

  • disco_bob on November 30, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    It's pretty clear that we'll be heading to Adelaide with an unchanged side. Which is the right thing to do. England will probably make a big blunder by playing Monty P and Swanny.

  • RVC-38 on November 30, 2013, 10:31 GMT

    I am a tad confused, everyone is calling for another spinerr to be added to compliment the spin of Lyon, Smith, Warner and Clarke do people think we are playing in India, along with Sidd;e, MJ and Harris and the possibility of Watson, if that is not enough bowling options geeze we are in trouble and you would have to feel for the English attack 2 medium pacers and 3 spinners. so with all that bowling bring in Hughes on his home wicket for Bailey or Watson if he cannot bowl.

  • Moppa on November 30, 2013, 10:19 GMT

    If Watson is fit to bowl 10-15 overs a day, the three pacemen plus him, Lyon and if needed Smith and Warner should be plenty - no need for Faulkner. If Watson can't be relied on to bowl 10-15 overs a day, drop him and bring in Faulkner. Or maybe drop Watson even if he can bowl!

  • Bonehead_maz on November 30, 2013, 9:49 GMT

    Let's get real! If the Adelaide pitch suddenly supports fast bowling, I will denounce CA forever. Why the hell aren't we even looking at a spinner ? Or at least a batsman who bowls spin ? (White/North). I don't know why I have no faith in our country's "official dictum's" but ......... *sheesh .............might have seen the last few years played ?

  • aus_trad on November 30, 2013, 9:47 GMT

    Now let's get this straight: in Brisbane, 4 of the Aus top 6 make 113 runs between them, the 4 main bowlers take 20 wickets for just over 300 runs, and the selectors are talking about leaving out a batsman for a bowling all-rounder... As an Aus fan, this kind of wooly thinking just makes me despair. If Johnson/Harris/Siddle/Lyon, plus Watson, plus Smith (and if necessary, Warner or even Clarke - spinners track in Adelaide, remember) is not enough bowlers, maybe this country should adopt croquet as its main summer sport instead of cricket...

  • VivGilchrist on November 30, 2013, 9:43 GMT

    Play two spinners on this pitch. Lyon and OKeefe will do the job. England will take in two spinners and be better for it. Watch this space.

  • dunger.bob on November 30, 2013, 9:38 GMT

    No mention of bringing in a spinner there by Boof. It was all 'we're happy with the 12' and so on. That could change when they suss out the pitch though.

    I think it's odds on that they'll swap Bailey and Faulkner. As @Naren pointed out , nearly always backfires when we bring in a 5th bowler but this is a different thing. It could be fairly well argued that Faulkner could replace Bailey on the strength of his batting alone and that his bowling is really just a bonus. A very handy bonus for Adelaide mind you. That argument is a bit rough on George after just one Test but I've got a funny feeling it's right.

  • Dangertroy on November 30, 2013, 9:36 GMT

    @ ozcricketwriter - Bailey didn't really fail in Brisbane, he out scored smith, Watson and Rogers. One test match is too small a sample size to say he can't make it at test level.

    I like the idea of Faulkner playing, but we really have a surfeit of bowlers already. The problem with having so many bowlers would be that every over an allrounder bowls is one that a true bowl didn't. Faulkner however is true enough as a bowler, but if he is in, there is no need to play a still recovering Watson. If he can't back up the bowlers in Adelaide, he is just taking the place of an inform batsman.

  • HatsforBats on November 30, 2013, 9:33 GMT

    @jmcilhinney, short answer, no. Watson has not done enough with the bat (and hasn't done for much of his test career) to deserve selection as a batsman alone. He plays great against the bowling machine (where Chappell honed his technique) though! You're probably right, Watson more than likely isn't 100%, but I think it's the fact that it's just as likely that the inclusion of Faulkner (to the exclusion of Bailey) wouldn't be of any significant detriment to the batting that gets Faulkner's hat in the ring.

  • The_Swing_Bowler on November 30, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    Based on Watson's current form he should not be in the same team as Faulkner - it should be one or the other. An in form Johnson is as good as an all-rounder (look at his batting last test) so that would give us 3 all-rounders in the team!

    Batting our wicket-keeper at 6 has been tried and failed enough recently. Even when Gilchrist was playing he didn't bat at 6 because we kept to the same structure of 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers (with a couple of the batsmen being able to add a few overs), and it worked. Moving the WK to 6 has not worked.

    If Faulkner comes in he has to be considered good enough to be a number 6 batsmen.

  • Shaggy076 on November 30, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    Watson can bowl and to include Faulkner that is too much bowling in my opinion. You need 6 bats.

  • HatsforBats on November 30, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    Bailey shouldn't have been selected in the first place. It's a hard one though, and it all depends on the pitch. By the looks of it (and from domestic performances & player comments so far), unless the curator gives it a good soaking and the first batting innings falls in a heap (a la 2011), the draw is odds on. It must be tempting to rest the whole pace attack and play Cutting, Faulkner, Butterworth, & Copeland. Dry up the runs, make England bowl for 2 days, score 600 and move on to Perth well rested. But just maybe the pitch might give us something? Thanks AFL, for ruining one of Australia's great cricketing grounds.

  • anton1234 on November 30, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    Australia are playing at home so they could bring someone in from outside the 12 named in the squad. I think Cameron White would be the better option; he is in good form and it seems spin may be the way to go at Adelaide, especially as the match wears on and gets into the 3rd, 4th and the 5th day. Faulkner played badly in his recent match at Adelaide, not taking any wickets.

    Often, when you choose an extra bowler it often transpires that he doesn't end up bowling much anyway, or if he does, he is probably bowling overs that the main guys should be bowling. I don't think Bailey is good enough in the longer form.

  • on November 30, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    To me Faulkner should not get a chance if he gets that should be in for Harris because i want Australia to play with 6 Batsman 1 All Rounder 1 Wicket keeper 3 Pace Bowlers and 1 Spinner at the adelaide we cant take a risk now and it would have been good to get a match against poor test playing team because then like india we could also have got a good team.I want CA to Zimbabwe or any other country where we can Finalize the team.My XI Would have been. 1)Hughes 2)Warner 3)Watson/Doolan 4)Clarke 5)Ferguson 6)Burns 7)Haddin 8)Johnson 9)Harris 10)Siddle 11)Lyon

  • Maui3 on November 30, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    That's way too many options! 4 regular bowlers+Faulkner+Watson+Smith. That's a pretty weak batting lineup, even before Bailey. Seems like they are already looking forward to Perth. I bet Swann is glad to hear that.

  • disco_bob on November 30, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    We don't need 5 bowlers as Smith can roll his arm over not to mention Watson. I believe that England will panic and bring in both Swann and Panesar in order to give Anderson and Broad some respite looking ahead to Perth. We on the other hand need to show some resolve.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge-Needs-A-Hug on November 30, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    "We know England are a very good cricket team". Is that a wind up Boof lol? They have shown no quality at all on this tour. The batting failed again in Alice Springs, the same culprits that haven't scored runs for ages. The 2nd and 3rd seam options all failed again. Why were they resting players who need some form, some time in the middle? Why are good players like a Onions and Compton miles away? It's almost negligence by the England management. I rated Flower very highly as a player and I think he's been fantastic for England but I do not understand what is going on on this tour. On the flip side Australia are well organised and in form. Faulkner could come in for Bailey but I don't think it makes much difference. They might even pluck an additional spinner from somewhere.

  • Beertjie on November 30, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Exactly what I said before. Admit your mistake by omitting Bailey. North or White for Bailey in the WACA 12. Keep attacking and the Poms will fold under pressure as they did last year against the Saffers.

  • Bonehead_maz on November 30, 2013, 8:41 GMT

    "each and every session," Cheers ! seemed obvious, but sadly is said.

  • Naren on November 30, 2013, 8:37 GMT

    If you look at History of Australian matches where they included 5 bowlers, they struggle to get wickets. It might be very weird, but a hard to ignore statistic. Faulkner might bring another left arm option, but somehow this theory hasn't worked well for them. We have to wait and see.

  • Ozcricketwriter on November 30, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    Faulkner definitely should play in Adelaide, where Australia will need 5 bowlers to avoid bowler burnout. Faulkner is in great form and he is a bowler, like Siddle and Harris, who can bowl forever. He can also bat to a decent level too, which could be valuable. Let's not forget that on his test debut Faulkner took 6 wickets at an average of 16 - so anyone saying he is not test standard are ignoring that. He also has a phenomenal first class record as well, and is in great form in all formats of the game. I feel sorry for Bailey but he failed so should be dropped.

  • jmcilhinney on November 30, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    If they're considering Faulkner then that presumably means that Watson is not fully fit because surely a fully fit Watson could bowl enough that they wouldn't need another bowler. There was talk last summer about Watson not necessarily being good enough to hold a place as a batsman alone. It seems that Lehmann has a higher opinion of Watson's batting but has he really done enough since then with the bat to warrant it? There was that one big innings in a dead rubber and not much else.

  • KeithMillersHair on November 30, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    Faulkner should play in Adelaide, with Bailey back in for the WACA. It is a good, logical approach to selection. The other options are either risk tired bowlers in Perth, or opt for a 'rotation policy' which just means you're not playing with your best 11 in either match. Bailey deserves his spot - this isn't about dropping him after one test. He'll be back. But if Adelaide is going to be a batting paradise - which seems to be the case - then we should have more than enough batting in the tail to cover us, with Haddin and Johnson in good form especially. In Perth, where it will be much harder for the batsmen, we can bring Bailey back again.

  • on November 30, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    Faulkner in for Bailey, Haddin moves at 6 and James at 7. Rest all should be the same. I'm backing Australia for 2-0! Go Aussies, beat the poms hard!

  • on November 30, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    Faulkner in for Bailey, Haddin moves at 6 and James at 7. Rest all should be the same. I'm backing Australia for 2-0! Go Aussies, beat the poms hard!

  • KeithMillersHair on November 30, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    Faulkner should play in Adelaide, with Bailey back in for the WACA. It is a good, logical approach to selection. The other options are either risk tired bowlers in Perth, or opt for a 'rotation policy' which just means you're not playing with your best 11 in either match. Bailey deserves his spot - this isn't about dropping him after one test. He'll be back. But if Adelaide is going to be a batting paradise - which seems to be the case - then we should have more than enough batting in the tail to cover us, with Haddin and Johnson in good form especially. In Perth, where it will be much harder for the batsmen, we can bring Bailey back again.

  • jmcilhinney on November 30, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    If they're considering Faulkner then that presumably means that Watson is not fully fit because surely a fully fit Watson could bowl enough that they wouldn't need another bowler. There was talk last summer about Watson not necessarily being good enough to hold a place as a batsman alone. It seems that Lehmann has a higher opinion of Watson's batting but has he really done enough since then with the bat to warrant it? There was that one big innings in a dead rubber and not much else.

  • Ozcricketwriter on November 30, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    Faulkner definitely should play in Adelaide, where Australia will need 5 bowlers to avoid bowler burnout. Faulkner is in great form and he is a bowler, like Siddle and Harris, who can bowl forever. He can also bat to a decent level too, which could be valuable. Let's not forget that on his test debut Faulkner took 6 wickets at an average of 16 - so anyone saying he is not test standard are ignoring that. He also has a phenomenal first class record as well, and is in great form in all formats of the game. I feel sorry for Bailey but he failed so should be dropped.

  • Naren on November 30, 2013, 8:37 GMT

    If you look at History of Australian matches where they included 5 bowlers, they struggle to get wickets. It might be very weird, but a hard to ignore statistic. Faulkner might bring another left arm option, but somehow this theory hasn't worked well for them. We have to wait and see.

  • Bonehead_maz on November 30, 2013, 8:41 GMT

    "each and every session," Cheers ! seemed obvious, but sadly is said.

  • Beertjie on November 30, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Exactly what I said before. Admit your mistake by omitting Bailey. North or White for Bailey in the WACA 12. Keep attacking and the Poms will fold under pressure as they did last year against the Saffers.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge-Needs-A-Hug on November 30, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    "We know England are a very good cricket team". Is that a wind up Boof lol? They have shown no quality at all on this tour. The batting failed again in Alice Springs, the same culprits that haven't scored runs for ages. The 2nd and 3rd seam options all failed again. Why were they resting players who need some form, some time in the middle? Why are good players like a Onions and Compton miles away? It's almost negligence by the England management. I rated Flower very highly as a player and I think he's been fantastic for England but I do not understand what is going on on this tour. On the flip side Australia are well organised and in form. Faulkner could come in for Bailey but I don't think it makes much difference. They might even pluck an additional spinner from somewhere.

  • disco_bob on November 30, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    We don't need 5 bowlers as Smith can roll his arm over not to mention Watson. I believe that England will panic and bring in both Swann and Panesar in order to give Anderson and Broad some respite looking ahead to Perth. We on the other hand need to show some resolve.

  • Maui3 on November 30, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    That's way too many options! 4 regular bowlers+Faulkner+Watson+Smith. That's a pretty weak batting lineup, even before Bailey. Seems like they are already looking forward to Perth. I bet Swann is glad to hear that.