Comments on: Lee injured; Hauritz in?

By: rahul

rahul — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:22:02 +0000

Brett Lee’s injury reminds me McGrath’s injury in 2005 when Australia went on to loose the ashes .

By: richo

richo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:41:05 +0000

Marcus, I rate North slightly more than Kat as a bowler, however I do agree that Kat has been under-utilised by Ponting as a bowler.
In regards to Lee one good tour match performance doesn’t guarantee that he’d turn around his poor record on English soil, he really struggles on English wickets. I’d hate for him to be picked and then be a liability if conditions don’t suit him.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:44:45 +0000

Richo, Hauritz probably isn’t going to make the team, but wouldn’t Australia be better off using Katich as our main spinner in that case, instead of North? He always looks like taking wickets when he bowls, and it was absolutely ridiculous that he didn’t bowl until over 160+ in Cape Town. I certainly hope the same mistake isn’t made, but I expect it will be.

Chris, if Lee continued in the same vein as in the tour match, then he’s be averaging a lot less than 40 this time around.

By: porridge

porridge — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:03:26 +0000

Perhaps I’m just the sort of fan who always prepares for the worst, and then gets pleasantly surprised if they lose just 4-0. And Lee is one of the more senior players in the Australian side, surely you can’t say that his injury doesn’t mean anything. But at this point I’d call all the Aussie players key anyway, being the pessimist I am.

Regarding luck, there was McGrath’s freak accident, lots of rain, Kasper’s unlucky wicket at Edgbaston. I know it happens all the time in cricket, but still, pessimistic streak.

By: richo

richo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:27:44 +0000

I’d prefer Hilfenhaus play over Lee anyway, can’t see Hauritz making the 11, I think the selectors will be happy to use North as our frontline spinner with support from Katich and Clark.

By: Chris Weston

Chris Weston — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:26:54 +0000

Shame for Lee but his record in England is hardly frightening. He takes his wickets here at over 40, which is entertaining because he bowls fast and the ball whistles to the fence, this is fine by me. It may be that the Aussie selectors are finally forced to pick a balanced attack which may just work out better for them. I’d have been happier to see them pick four seamers.

As for the comments from porridge, how is a 40-per-wicket bowler a ‘key player’? And if you thought 2005 was luck then I suspect you didn’t watch any of it after Lord’s.

By: Rob Eberstein

Rob Eberstein — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:38:51 +0000

Great shame for Brett Lee and the series. Brett Lee is a tremendous character and great entertainer. He’s quick, but erratic, and I dont think the England players would mind facing him as there will always be plenty of runs. Better the devil you know… who knows what Hilfenhaus or Siddle can do.

By: jjamjj

jjamjj — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:52:53 +0000

Injuries aren’t luck they’re part of the game. In 06-07 England had no Simon Jones, Marcus Trescothick or Michael Vaughan. This time around Flintoff and Pietersen are vulnerable. England fans shouldn’t feel bad about it, we’ve had our fair share.

By: Wolliwoo

Wolliwoo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:52:32 +0000

Oz beat SAf without him, so no reason to get too excited I think.

By: porridge

porridge — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:36:11 +0000

Well, perhaps it’s the only way England CAN win the Ashes – if one of Australia’s key players are injured. I’m half hoping Lee will be out so we get a better chance, but at the same time I don’t want England to win out of sheer luck like in 2005. I was over the moon 4 years ago, but still, things definitely did go our way. Or worse, Lee is injured and we still lose.