If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.I don't like all this I'm reading about how we should have picked Hauritz. We lost the test because of a batting collapse, very unfortunate yes but not something that we're prone to, not someone you can reduce the chances of ocuring significantly through any changes. And short of scoring all the runs himself what is a captain supposed to do about a batting collapse?
I agree the final test squad on paper meant a win to Australia, the game was decided because of an aberration first innings by Australia. The pitch wasn't a flat deck but it wasn't a 150 pitch as Australia posted more than twice that on a pitch that was two days older despite losing two players to run outs.If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.
Honestly, England had a weaker side compared to Australia; both batting and bowling wise.