back to..."would(should) he play"?

About McGrath, it seems(and rightly so) that the Aussie management is desperate enough to take a chance with his injury, as long as they think he can perform through the entire duration of the game. That's because he's a champion, and they need the win. And we, in India, so often complain the decision to get Sachin back into the Aussie series, despite his less than complete recovery. The decision has to come from the player, but if he is ready to risk his short-term career(and participation in some future matches) and the team management thinks its a gamble worth taking in a big enough situation, then why not?

And Warne here gets it right, when he says Everybody would like to know where they stand and what the side is as early as possible. But when it's Glenn McGrath, arguably the best fast bowler in the world, you want to give him every chance to play. If that means it's a last-minute decision, it's a last-minute decision.

Meanwhile Vaughan thinks Collingwood is a good bet, because he makes up for his less than penetrative bowling with the extra runs he would get(as compared to a regular bowler like Jones or Anderson). I have a feeling they might stick with this theory, although the main reason may be that they don't have enough confidence that Anderson would be effective in the conditions at Oval. The trouble with Anderson is, that if he does not get helpful conditions, and therefore is not effective, he becomes easy meat. He cannot, in that case, bowl even that many overs that Collingwood can bring. That's why I feel they erred in not getting Tremlett into the picture.

Finally, this seems to be very interesting. Australia, atleast in their immediate team selection process, seem to be stubbornly following their principle of backing the proven performers. Although, in this series, it has let them down big-time. But they feel, its not yet time to give it up. Its failed over just 3 tests, and has been successful for long enough to make them still have faith in it.

So, what this essentially means is that they would not only keep Hayden as the opener(that was known for some time now), but are also considering playing five bowlers if McGrath doesn't come through. That would mean dropping a batsman which, at this stage, seems to be Katich. Not Martyn who, as I said, is their proven performer but has looked much less comfortable at crease than Katich. It would also mean that Gilchrist would bat higher, and would be burdened with more responsibility since now he would have less cushion above him.

And the starting lineup would ready Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Gilchrist - which means an alternating thread of hits and flops. Wow...isn't this interesting ! And although I do want to see McGrath play, because that evens up the competition much more, wouldn't I still love to see how the above scenario works out! Either its going to gee them all up to perform way out of their skin, or backfire real big-time. Either way, good fun :-)