Who Will Australia Pick?

Mary McCarthy said "If someone tells you he is going to make a 'realistic decision', you immediately understand that he is going to do something bad." For the Australians, bunkered down in London, it is no relief that they only have one difficult decision to make. They would be aware that their opponents have several nightmares but so what. With a fully fit squad, there can be no excuses if Ponting and Neilsen and the other selectors get it wrong and cricket's most important trophy, that damned minuscule urn, goes back into the hands of the English.

The batsmen deserve their place through hard work and success in the series. At some stage and sometime, for many of them repeatedly, Watson, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke and North have all put totals within the totals that have squared this series. Despite his meager efforts, Hussey is climbing back up the form ladder and his second innings 64 at Edgbaston was the pilot light which burned steady and from which Clarke and North ignited their flames. Nothing stirs a fellow more than a team mate fighting and succeeding under pressure. Hussey's effort saved that game and stopped a 2-0 series scoreline after only three Tests.

Haddin, despite broken fingers and bad interviews, will catch the balls that England don't snick to slips and will score handy, quick runs. Nothing else is expected of an Australian keeper, even though the "tradition" is only forty years old. Rod Marsh created it with iron gloves and hefty heaves over mid wicket when I was an impressionable teen still pondering my chances of Baggy Green. The fact a NSW north coast lad went West to perfect the tradition is another story. No matter how long Haddin plays, he won't be the velcro strap on either of their batting pads.

But its not in batting or bowling where Mary McCarthy's words will have resonance, for Australia only has one berth on its Ashes juggernaut to fill. Ben Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson pick themselves for The Oval, as having the benefit of the selectors unalterable belief in the first four outings, its hardly likely that a change of policy would be adopted in connection with their places in the team. No, it's that last spot, the fourth bowler, which has occupied all Australia thought since Onions collected spectacles at Headingley when Johnson bowled him in the second innings.

Thanks to Neilsen, the flip of a coin has become a shell game - possibly in order to keep the senior man, Lee, a happy chappy. Eenie meanie minie moe ... which will it be, Clark, Hauritz or Lee?

A few facts.

The pitch is already drying and will take spin which means nothing to Australia if they bat first and having lost three tosses in this series, Ponting's career average in coin tosses indicates The Oval might be lucky for him. In sixty Tests in the Big Chair, Ponting wins the toss 43% of the time ... in the low end by Australia's longer term skippers. Even Kim Hghes had better luck at the toss. Hauritz is only of use to Australia if they bat first and even then, he is at best a contributor. Unless Saqlain has put some special magic in his back pocket, he's not going to rip England out, even on a bunsen burner.

Clark was Australia's best bowler in Leeds. Forget the overall figures, just focus on what Clark did to the English top order in the first innings because that's where the game was won. International coaches have been staggered by a selection policy which excluded Clark until Headingley, Micky Arthur of South Africa the most outspoken of all. Before the the first skirmish at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff, Clark was everyone's pick to be Australia's best bowler and yet, inexplicably, he mixed the drinks ... and then continued to, even when Johnson looked a shot duck and many called on Siddle to be out of form but in season for scalp hunters. Finally, desperately, Hilditch and Co agreed with the rest of Australia - even those who didn't particularly like cricket -and redeemed Clark for the 4th Test. Hey presto, the series is 1-1. He is the only bowler of his type in the touring party and he's the best in the world at tying knots around batsmen for the man at the other end to target.

Then there's the case for Brett Lee, as decent a cricketer to have pulled on the boot for Australia and without doubt, one of the heroes of the last campaign in England. He's a fine fellow Lee - honest, hard working and talented. Unfortunately, he's also expensive and easily knocked of his pace pedestal and length these days. Neilsen has paraded his reverse swing as a subtle gift but the last time the ball went Irish at The Oval was when Dave Allen stole it after play. Lee has been a grand servant of Australian cricket but wouldn't make any of the first three "best of" teams one might choose in a fit of fantasy. His is a lame case.

So Hauritz or Clark. It shouldn't have come to this if Johnson had been given his dues after the first two Tests, but it has. I'd pick Clark, because for England to win this match, they must score heavily in the first innings. If Hauritz plays, he can't prevent this. If Clark plays, he can. Add to this a loathing or superstition based on experience and logic that you don't change a winning team and enough reasons exist for common sense to prevail. However, the Australian deciders are neither common or sensible, so excuse me if I get this wrong.

My teams in batting order would therefore be:

England Strauss, Cook, Trott, Collingwood, Bell, Prior, Flintoff, Swann, Anderson, Onions, Panesar (Broad 12th)
Australia Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, Johnson, Clark, Siddle, Hilfenhaus (Hauritz 12th)

On with the motley!

What do you think? Post a comment below. Fill in the "name" spot (ignore "URL") and your comment will appear.

You can also vote in the poll at the bottom of the page.