i personally believe its a very brave and courageous decisions of aussies to include watson in the 1st test at brisbane.
Many critics may fingerpoint it but we must know that watson is an allrounder he can bat at any number as well as bowl at resonable line mostly. also he brings more passion to this aussie side,
On the other hand england are indecisive about their approach for the 1st test ,they must be courage enough to defend their decisions whether right or wrong.
australians are thinking very high rite now they want to start the ashes with a win and it can only be possible with the combination of both old horses and young guns but the question is how england will tackle this move..

An interesting selection scenario. Should bowlers with similarities such as McGrath and Clark play in the same team? If the Aussies are indeed copying the 2005 English then no, they wont play both. Another question will be how has England played left arm quicks in the past year and how often? Definitely a case of Johnson. Even though his numbers in Pura Cup this year have been excellent, Tait wont get a cap come 23rd. As you said, Ponting has shown his reluctance to bowl the unknown in pressure situations, and Tait has hardly let one rip at test level. Regardless of who is picked I think that captaincy will play a large part in which team can take the 20 wickets. It would be good to see Ponting live up to his nickname and start having a punt on anyone who is not McGrath, Lee or Warne

I'm not sure that I agree with you about Michael Clarke; he's a classy batsmen who would certainly outscore Watson over the course of a series. Would Shane Watson make it into the squad on his batting or bowling alone? I doubt it. What it shows is that Ponting doesn't want to have to rely on his first choice quicks, and needs a medium paced option if things are going badly. This looks like a sign of weakness to me, and something previous Aussie teams would never have done.

Lee and McGrath must be a bit concerned; if either get off to a bad start there's a strong chance they won't get back in to the side.

Australia are still an old team. I'm looking forward to seeing their body language after rhey've spent two hot days in the field, chasing the ball as it speeds from Freddy's or KP's bat.

As an English supporter, I'm delighted with this squad. It really show the Aussies are worried. I think England are still one step ahead, but to maintain the advantage, they really ought to pick Monty.

i don't think batsmen need to be in the squad. If one gets injured in the first test, we can substitute in clarke of jacques, for the 2nd easily enough. And Macgill will make an appearance if the quicks fail.

Not including MacGill is a mistake - Watson can bowl a decent line and length and hold up an end if Brett and Glenn get tired. MacGill is a wicket-taker, especially when he has Shane Keith at the other end and feels like 'respite' for the batsmen.

It is very important that Aussies don't try to play it save; they should throw in a wild card and see what that brings about. I would go for Mitchel Johnson. He has pace, decent amount of movement, he is a left hander; which does give them variety and he got the number on Kevin Peiterson. Furthermore, he come across as a thinking bowler which is far more important. Tait on the other hand is brute force; which is also good but I would play him if Bret Lee was not available or something. Same reason why Stuart Clark should be pushed aside; why would you need an impersonation of the Great man Mgrath when he is available himself.

Glory is not far away for a team in ashes on there first meeting, Having good fast bowling attack for a pitch which is not supporting fast bowling, 20 wickets will be a huge task, Even In the fastest track at perth australians had struggled to take 20 wickets, with warne also in the team bowling against South Africans. In these situations the variety to take 20 wickets is lacking in this australian line up. Pitch the 22 yard decides the game, Sure one team is putting the challenge the other has to handle it, Australia are expecting to put a challenge are they having enough to accept a challenge which might come as a surprise from england

Nice to see some focus on the Australian team, thanks Tim. Pretty good article too and I agree with what you say. The truth is Watson is supposed to be more a batsman than a bowler, so assuming our 3 pace bowlers plus Warne do well he may not really be needed, except perhaps as a partnership breaker.

I believe it's less of a courageous decision and more of a cautious one. The only batsmen of note who are not in the squad are Pup (dumped for the allrounder choice) Cosgrove and Jaques. The last both have very definite batting patterns - and would require breaking up your winning opening partnership, or dumping Martyn - neither very likely in an ashes series. So, the decision was only which bowling combination Ponting would prefer on the day. I would have liked to see MacGill in the mix, just to give the poms some more worries - but I don't think it was ever likely he would feature in the first test. At the SCG however it will be a different story.
For the first test - take Johnson. He earned it, he will create trouble and may be the Simon Jones of these ashes.

Watson's performance with the bat and bowl over the last year had to come under consideration while naming the squad. He has improved immensionally with the bat and had added a yard to his bowling speed too. Thats what gave him adavantage over clarke. But in recent champions trophy watson was out hooking couple of times, so he better watch out those short pitch stuff dished to him if he wants to retain that no. 6, with clarke waiting in the wings. Coming to bowlers macgill remains the most unlucky australian having been in the same era as warne. If not for warne he too would have taken 400-500 test wickets. i think it would be a toss up between johnson and tait for the last bowling spot. I bet on johnson to get the nod.

Good points Tim but I have to disagree with you on the Watson issue I think he weakens the batting line up rather than having a specialist 6th Batsman which was always Australias key to success there six batsmen and Gilchrist would plunder 500+ then set extremely attacking fields and let Warne weave his magic. I hope to see Watson and the third seamer bowl but I doubt pontings tactics are predictable Bowl 10 overs of Pace then turn to tha man Warns while everyone else plays second fiddle - but if Australia only score 300 they can't attack as much as they used to. Will be an interesting battle.

The selectors haven't actually chosen the side yet. They've met the deadline by keeping their options open.

Okay so they chose Watson ahead of Clarke, but had Cosgrove or Katich found a rich vein of form in the Pura Cup to now they may have displaced both those chaps. Sure, Watson is being picked in part because he can bowl, but he's not being picked FOR his bowling. His batting stands alone at a first class average of 45, comfortably better than Clarke's. The Aussie selectors see Watson as a work in progress with his bowling. If it works out, great, if it doesn't then perhaps he'll perform well enough with the bat to justify his spot. They'll never pick him as one of the four frontline bowlers.

Not sure if Australia is trying to copy the Poms at all. Instead, if they know their history, they may be thinking back to the debut test of one Doug Walters - a great batsman and useful spare bowler - at the Gabba against England almost exacty 41 years ago.

I disagree that the Aussies are trying to be more like England with their bowling attack. Let's not forget who scored first at 4+ runs an over, set attacking fields, and employed specialist fielding coaches.
Where they try to be like England is that they did seek out an allrounder, after seeing Freddie's series last year (a blinder).
My question is, did they need an all rounder, a la Watson? They have two great bowlers in Warne and Lee who are more than handy with the bat (see last Ashes). As for a strike bowler, I know Gillespie went for heaps on those English pitches, but I reckon he could show a thing or two on these Aussie ones, not to mention the Test match double century (it still counts, higher than S Waugh's highest score).

I don't think Watson is the answer, we have The Huss who is awesome, and enough bowlers who can bat. We are a different team this time around. I think Watson's inclusion may hurt us. Look for him to average 10-15 (out pulling most times) and go for around 4.5 an over.. in tests that's not good.

Picking Watson is a brave call. After Flintoff's effort last year, the Aussie selectors have gone looking for the Australian equivalent, and Watson is the closest thing they have found. I hope he succeeds because he would give Australia so many options in this series. But considering that Gilchrist's weaknesses are now being exploited, and he is not as dependable with the bat, Watson will have to deliver or the middle-order could be under pressure again.

Good team selection and certainly a vast improvement on 2005 ashes team. There was 3 runs in the series then. McGrath wasn't available or not fully fit for 4 of the 5 tests last time. Johnson & Watson are sure to provide a sterner test to the english batsmen than gillespie and kasprowicz did. Hussey is a class above Katich and Watson's batting doesn't have to do all that much to beat Clarke's input last time over the series (1st test was good though). Also couldn't see Gilchrist, Hayden or Martyn performing any worse than last time. The team certainly looks alot stronger. England however have lost arguably their bast batter from last series in Trescothick and their 2nd best bowler in Simon Jones. Not to mention the captaincy skills of michael vaughan. Add to that home conditions and home crowd and I think Aussies have the edge. Should be another cracking series though. Can't wait.

Australia appear to want to play a varied seam attack with all the bases covered. Out-and-out pace - Lee, bounce and accuracy - McGrath, swing and the left arm angle - Johnson. Watson is very much secondary back-up, and I doubt he will bowl many overs unless England run up big totals and/or lengthy innings. I've watched Watson play for Hampshire in the past. His batting oozes ability, and he is likely to score more runs than Katich did last year. But, his bowling in the first class game always looked very ordinary.

You blokes wondering whether Watson would make the team as a batsmen or bowler alone, or whether Clarke should score more runs should check your stats. In 75 first class matches Clarke averages 40 wheras Watson averages 49.5. I don't see the problem with having a guy who averages nearly 50 coming in at number 6.

Tim how could you..."The sight of McGrath’s name on the team sheet, which once spread alarm among opposing batsmen, now brings mere respect.".......If the life of my whole family, depended on one over of fast/medium fast bowling, being bowled to the best batsmen in the world...I would choose one Mr. Mcgrath, without blinking an eyelid......How Could you Tim ?......

McGrath is over the hill. Bring in Clark (his like for like replacement) and Tait. Bench Langer. Bring in Jacques. I can guarantee that Jacques for Langer will happen before the series is over.

I think Aussies are doing a mistake. Remember last time they lost ashes bcoz of batsmen, not bowlers. Forget about 400+ scored by English in some of the 1st innings of last series, everyday isn't a sunday for everyone. I think Aussies should focus on their batting, not pace attack. Mcgrath and Warne are still more than enough for Poms. Hussey should play vital role in this ashes. If he makes sure that Australia dont collapse like they did a year ago, Aussies are sure going to kiss the urn.

I think that the selection of Watson as an "all-rounder" is a retrograde step as far as it seems to fulfill the Australian selectors' perennial desire to discover a test-quality all-rounder at the expense of promoting other candidates who may be better exponents of either batting or bowling. The questionable logic is most evident in those reports which suggest that Watson can be used to "hold up an end". This is a desperate euphemism for "he is not expected to take wickets".

If it truly is the case that Watson's role is to play filler and give the other bowlers a bit of break, but isn't deemed capable of test match striking power, then surely Michael Clarke would have been a more appropriate selection in both the short-term interests of regaining the Ashes, and the longer-term goal of enriching the future of the Australian test team?

Anyway, at least it's getting interesting! I'm looking forward to a good game next week, and a solid Australian victory!

The Aussies have decided to back their Dad's Army of players and it could turn out to be their undoing.

Phil Jaques should have been selected to open the batting instead of Langer and McGrath isn't the force he once was - one of the young guns should start in Brisbane instead.

Previous more ruthless selection panels would have given them both the kiss-off and moved on to strengthen the squad.

To my mind Watson has been picked, not just to copy England, but so that he can do some of McGrath's bowling for him.

The result: It has unbalanced the Aussie side and the tail now starts at 6 - England's bowlers will be licking their lips.

Watson's selection seems in indicate that the Aussies lack their customary faith in a four-man attack, which has to mean they have a few doubts about whether McGrath can continue to perform at his best. Johnson is surely going to debut as a left-hander and is already a potential nemesis to Pietersen - Clark and Tait are very similar players to McGrath and Lee respectively - and maybe the selectors want some insurance here as well. An unusually cautious selection is compounded by the continued absence of Brad Hodge, who made an outstanding start to his Test career a year ago and was mystifyingly omitted from the tour to South Africa. Hodge doesn't seem to be anywhere near the mix right now, which is astonishing given his record is vastly superior to Michael Clarke's. So for me the Aussies are saying that they think Watson's batting is going to be something special. I wonder if his selection may just allow England an advantage, hopefully one they will not negate by omitting Panesar.....to play Giles instead, after a year of not playing the game, would be a ridiculous and totally unnecessary gamble.

Johnson should be an ideal choice for third fast bowler alongside Lee and Mcgrath.His presence will give more variety to attack and he troubled English batsmen in championstrophy so his confidence will be sky high.Australia should play Clarke in place of Watson as their bowling is already very strong so there is no need of playing a fourth seam bowler rather they should play a proper batsmen like Micheal Clarke.

While all the eyes are on the Aussie squad for the 1st test, the Poms would need to get their best squad in to counter this. My best bet would be Strauss, Cooke, Bell, Petersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard, Anderson, Harmison and Panesar. The only hot point for discussion would be Panesar vs Giles. Panesar has proved himself as an aggressive bowler with match winning ability. Plus the Aussies respect him as is evidenced by the pre series comments even before having faced a ball.

I think you many of you have forgotten Watson's batting skill. His first class average is around about 50 and he used to bat at 3 and 4 for Tasmania. Since those days his batting has improved more on that level. He still is a bit rusty in one days and ODIs but he has the batting skill to be a good test match batter. His bowling isn't enough to get him in the team but his batting is. Clarke will get his chance later, but we must remember this is the Gabba - Watson's home ground. Also I think M. Johnson will play especially since it is a predicted greentop at the Gabba which may mean Hoggard may be better than many expected.

One of Stuart Clark or Shaun Tait should have been omitted. Two pace bowler back-ups is an unneeded extravagance. Stuart MacGill should have been in the side, for Sydney, possibly Adelaide, England are clueless against spin (Bell, Cook, Collingwood...), and he would have been very successful, along with Warne. Jaques and Clarke will have their chances after this series, with Langer and Martyn expected to retire, and Australia should definitely go with Mitchell Johnson, and I fully agree with Watson's inclusion, it's not a case of copying, its just that an allrounder brings balance to the side.

And whoever thinks that the tail starts at 6 is deluded, Watson has a first batting average of 50, and batting at 7 is the great Adam Gilchrist. Not to mention that Hussey loves to stay in and make partnerships with the tail-end. Then you've got Warne and Lee, both great tailender batsmen. England won't relax too much until McGrath comes to the crease.

Australia were run ragged in the 2005 series and both the team and team management watched with morbid fascination as the series ebbed away mainly due to the limitless bowling stocks possessed by the old enemy. Australia have searched desperately for their own Flintoff and they feel they have one in Watson. He'll neither score as many runs nor take as many wickets and his role as the reliever whilst the other quicks head in for a shower and a rest (will the Aussies copy that tactic too?) is unproven as Ponting won't give him much bowling.

The 13-man squad is more a reflection on the defeat that was than an attempt to pick the best possible team. Australia will regain the Ashes - hardly up for debate really - but the selectors aren't doing them any favours by trying to rehash England '05.

Clarke will figure at some stage in the series and here's hoping that M.Johnson gets a run in Brisbane.

Yeah its a 3 way race for the 10th spot (McGrath will remain at N. 11). But this team has excellent depth in batting with Warne and Lee at 8 and 9 respectively. England will have to count scoring 400 plus every innings to be able to beat the Aussies or hope for the odd batting collapse in the second innings. Australia will look more positive if they go with Johnson or Tait.

Are they really copying England??? Watson allows them to confidently pick Johnson who has impressed recently, and with an aging McGrath plans must be fastracked for some experienced replacements. With McGrath & Warne in the side better to have a batting allrounder - Freddie really is a bowling allrounder.
Pressure is also being applied to the aging batsman from Jacques but really they have done nothing wrong since the Ashes (apart from Langer since his return) & early season form is good. My prediction - Langer will have 2 tests and depending on Jacques form and the results and then he is on the chopping block.

The aussie squad resembles what i believe this present team fears most. Their inability to get wickets at will, for which their will have to attribute most of their success in recent years, considering the approach of players like Kevin Peterson and Flintoff.

"Michael Vaughan played those ten cards masterfully in 2005." Oh please! You English do love to gloss over a winners faults. That Martyn and Clarke you mention had one important factor. Vaughan didn't bowl Jones. It cost him the game and if not for 2 runs in the next game - could have cost the series. Vaughan never had a clue what to do with Jones he just got lucky. Plus with Flintoff at one end he was guaranteed 4 of his 10 options would work.
Great bowlers always make Captains look better than they are.

A good article Tim. If Oz are really serious about looking to the future and regaining the ashes i would go with Hayden & Langer opening (Jacques in as soon as one of them fails). Ponting picks himself. Martyn is a good one day player but is past his prime. I would pick Hodge to replace him. Hussey at five, Clarke at six (he is the future of Oz cricket), Gilly at 7 (although Haddin is tapping on the door ever so softly), Watson at 8 (give him another go to see if he is the real deal. Any one can take wickets in ODI), Warne, Lee, McGrath.

It was our batting that let us down last time and i think we shoud aim to post 600+ each innings and bowl them out with Warnie...

Im very excited that shane watson is batting at six as i thinkhe will average less than 20in the series i would be more worried seeing clarke or even andy symonds coming in at this stage.hes currently opening in one day games is he going to try and smash his way in test cricket? australia were desperate to find there own FREDDIE for this series but watson your flintof? don't make me
laugh. We made this mistake for many year trying to find a new beefy ( defretas,lewis,white,ealham)when one comes along they will stand out you don't have to make one!GO ENGLAND!!

I think Watsons inclusion is a mistake. For mine, Jacques should be in the squad. Why can't he bat at no.6? Does he always just have to open? He is obviously in a rich vein of form with 3 centurys in the past month (2 against england & one first class one a few weeks back). I think Clark should be the other quick included. I watched his form in the NSW v.s england warm up and he troubled batsmen in every over he bowled. Will be interesting to see how Tait goes against the english in the 3 day match. I think a lot hinges on how he performs as to who gets the nod for the first test...

Ah, you're a cheeky one, Tim. If Clarke had been included instead of Watson, your story would have instead suggested that the selection was conservative and that Australia's bowling attack now lacked depth, variety, and stamina. Nonetheless, keep stirring the pot - its all good fun.

Langer coming off 188 no against Tasmania (top of the table with NSW) averaging 73.75 in 5 innings (1 no). Jacques 48.16 in 6 innings (0 no). Jacques is facing the unfortunate reality that he'd be picked in any other test team in the world, but not this one, and rightfully so at the moment. Langer wont last much longer, then Jacques can step in as a ready made replacement.

I like the bowling attack picked as long as Clark doesn't play. He's too much like McGrath and doesn't give enough flexibility. I'd play Tait while you've got Watson, I'd rely on Warne, McGrath and Lee to take 20 wickets and bring in Tait who will destroy a side when he's on song but isn't as consistent as Johnson.

I feel sorry for Bracken and Hodge who aren't even mentioned in this debate, another two who would be right up in the mix in most other countries.
Over all a fairly predictable selection, but then again the last ten years have been pretty predictable and it hasn't done us any harm. The brave move would be selecting White (150 no against Tassy and 5/59) for the final test at SCG over McGill :)

I have never been sold on Watson. For mine, he'd be better replaced by Jacques. I'd back McGrath, Lee, Warne and any of Stu Clark, Johnson or MacGill to roll England. With Jacques at 6 and Gilchrist at 7, there's enormous pressure on England to post or chase a massive total before the coin has even been tossed, and that in itself improves your bowlers 5%.

It's also frequently overlooked that the 2005 Ashes represented the worst cricket Australia's played in a decade, with no McGrath for a large part of the series, Hussey inexpicably left out, Martyn gettin g a string of appalling umpiring decisions and Kaspa and Dizzy being ineffective. England, conversely, played out of their skins, and realistically, couldn't have played much better. AND STILL, they only just scraped a series win.

There's no doubting England have improved markedly since, say, 2001. They deserved to win the Ashes. But let's not get carried away. They'll do well to compete here.

On another note, the practice of subbing on a fielder so a bowler can have a rest after a spell should be banned. You pick 11 players. Short of injury, they play the game. If your bowlers aren't fit enough to play the game as it's meant to be played, don't pick them.

Incidentally, I couldn't care less that Ponting got run out by the English fielding coach. After all, it's not as if Harmison would have been in covers if he'd been on the field - whoever was in covers would (should) have been good enough to knock the stumps down.

2 cent deposit.

It might be noted that McGrath does put fear into the English. Last Ashes, how many games did england win with him in the team?
As for players not gaining selection the players in the team are performing, even Marto seems slightly interested. Unfortunately that means they will have to wait until they retire at the end of the series or in the next 12 months.

And what's the most shrewed and important decision made in Australian cricket over the last 24 hours?... Yep, that's right, the selection of Jamie Cox as the fourth selector. And what does that tell us? Only some thing about the players that are going to be selected for the rest of the summer - all missed that one didn't you supposed die-hard English cricket chaps. But don't worry old boys, we've got freddy and K.P, oh, and if only dear old duncan (bless 'im) would just pick Monty everything will be just tops.
Tim, mate, it's time to make this ashes thing personal. Have any of you English bloggers ever seen an aussie pitch? Do you even know anything about aussie conditions or the gabba? Some of the drivel I've read about McGrath struggling, aussie attacks not being able to take 20 wickets - I've got news for all you old boys and wannabes out there in damp, dark England, England are about to get thrashed and flogged from on end of Australia to the other. Cox's influence (and the loss of Allan Border) on the selection panel will mean Australia will be adventurous throughout the summer. Johnson or Tait will get the gabba, 2 leggies for sydney and maybe adelaide and Perth. Watson will take wickets consistently throughout the series, and the aussie batsmen are just rubbing their hands, gleefully waiting to fill their boots on the back of the pie-throwing rubbish Hoggard, Harmison, and Giles call bowling. Three or four of the English will play well (Cook, Strauss, KP whoever), but boys, I've got news for you - it takes more than 3 or 4 good players to win a test match. Put quite simply, your stuffed! But don't worry old chaps, you'll always have 2005 to talk about for the next 20 years.
And look, even if the aussies do start losing, we've always got Warney to polish off afternoon tea and give us the edge for the last session.
Cheers old chums

Jason, Johny and Ness have hit the nail on the head with Watson versus Clarke debate. Watson has had the numbers over Clarke in the longer version of the game continuously, plus his bowling is underestimated. Since returning from injury Watson has done very little wrong and deserves his place. Pundits seem to champion Clarke on potential alone, but the potential of Watson far outweighs that of Clarke over this Ashes period. (Clarke will get his chance once Martyn retires after the World Cup. Jacques will get his chance after the Ashes when Langer retires).

The discussion on bowlers is healthy and is a very big positive for the Aussies over the English. Choosing from 5 in-form pace bowlers is an incredible luxury and must make Fletcher envious that his best (Jones) is unavailable for the tour. So much rests on Flintoff and Harmison’s shoulders, that should either Hoggard or Anderson/Mahmood fail, they will have a very big chasm to fill. The pressure in the bowling department is therefore very much on the English.

Somewhere recently on cricinfo there was an article about great teams needing either four good fast bowlers or a couple of good fast bowlers and a champion spinner to win matches. Selection decisions for both teams could determine whether this rings true, but on paper the Aussies look to have the better leather fingers.

I believe the English bowling attack will be struggling to take wickets at will, which was the deciding factor in last years series. What with Simon Jones missing from the side, Steve Harmison in a bit of a form slump, and not so swing friendly Kookaburra cricket balls on Australian pitches. Not to mention that this summer in Australia is going to be a very hot one. England will have to take 9 wickets just to stem the flow of runs from the Aussie batsmen who will score runs, and fast.
The new Australian side looks very good on paper and recent form, I expect Johnson to start in the XI. Ponting copped a bit of flack last year concerning his captaining tactics and I don't think he'll be making the same mistakes. The confidence of the Australian players is sky-high, I can't really say the same for the English after recent events.
England are going into the series needing 'only' a drawn series to retain the Ashes, I think that this approach and mentality will be their ultimate downfall.

The selection of Watson in the aussie squad could prove to be the difference from last years series. However, the only reason he is there is not necessarily because of Freddie's success, although that plays a part, but because there is no batsmen who has made himself a must pick at the no.6 spot. There are no middle order batsmen who are making truckloads of runs and ready for selection in Australian domestic cricket. If there was, Watson would probably not be entertained as a possible allrounder. If clarke had made hundreds for australia more often and at NSW level, he would surely be in. If Phil jacques was not an opener, he would probably be in the team. Not sure why Hodge isn't in and Martyn is, but that's another story.

Watson was the find of Champion's trophy for the Aussies apart from Bracken.It is amazing how Aussies can bring in fresh blood and they become match-winners instantly. Surely it is to do with their domestic cricket.Watson looks like a genuine all-rounder and that is one thing this all conquering Aussie team lacks at the moment. I personally feel England's chances are bleak this time. MacGraw will certainly want make his last ashes (supposedly) a memorable one.

Some interesting stats from last Ashes series – Warne bowled 33% of Australia’s overs, Lee 25% and McGrath 28% of the overs of the test matches he played in. This leaves only 14% of overs bowled by the fourth, and other bowlers/part timers. Furthermore, Lee’s 25% of overs means he would be bowling 23 overs of the full 90 in a day. To be at maximum effectiveness, Lee needs, in my opinion, to be bowling around 16 – 18 overs a day. I am also of the opinion, that like a batsman, a captain can bide his time in Test cricket. This means employing the use of a 5th bowler or part-timer to try and tie the batsman down for a spell of 6 or 8 overs and allow a fresh Lee to come back on and attack a frustrated batsman. With Watson now looking unlikely for the first Test, the choice of who to fill the those overs with becomes more difficult. His likely replacement though, Clarke, is an underrated bowler who I believe could happily bowl 12 overs in a day. My distribution of overs in a day for the Australian bowling attack is as follows: McGrath 20-22 overs, Lee 16, Warne 28, fourth bowler (Johnson, Tait, Clark) 16, Watson (hopefully)/others 8-10 overs.

Craig 5 in form bowlers????? I can think of one maybe two! Lets see who is in form come Thursday

I dont really rate watson...part of me thinks the aussies are so desperate for that genuine allrounder they lack that watson is being fast tracked for the ashes..for me hes just not proven especially at test match level..
But you can bet your bottom dollar that clarke will be ready to slot in at no.6 if watson doesn't perform.

A typical safe call from Ponting, he aint any good at punting, if only England had Simon Jones, the Ashes is as good as home where it belongs, A combination of Mcgrath., Lee, Clark (Mcgrath copy), Warne and Watson will not worry Fletcher, he must be doubling over with laughter. No pace, except Lee, No variety except for KP and Freddy to hammer the hell out of Watson, this must be the most safe call in Australia, if only Vaughan had been captain, he would have known what to say, come on Freddie, say something, if not anyting else, as a rejoinder to what Mcgrath said, the Ashes is back in England, this bowling aint going to get 20 English wickets.

Well JimDavis, I do agree with you that good bowlers make captains much better than they are the way Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath made Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh look great. Ricky Ponting too would have looked great if McGrath had been at his prime; unfortunately, that is not so any longer though he still remains a dangerous customer. As for McGill, I guess he should be taken in the Aussie team especially against South Africa, England, and West Indies (though there is one Mr. Brian Charles Lara) since they play genuine leg spin atrociously. As for Shane Watson, I hope he is not headed the Shane Lee way, lots of promise and hardly anything to show.

For the first time in a while Australia has a world of choice for the 3rd seamer which we just didn't have last time. Tait and Johnson are both very much in form, and for those saying Clark is just a McGrath clone, in the South African series he bowled better than I've seen McGrath bowl in a very long time. If England "heave a sigh of relief", then mightn't it be an idea to play on that overconfidence? Besides, one McGrath's better than two!