"Leaving out Hauritz was a blunder"

by S M August 25, 2009

"After all the hype, I think the final match was decided by one spell, from Stuart Broad after lunch on Friday. In fact, I'd say the series has boiled down to two spells, with Broad following Andrew Flintoff's great effort at Lord's," Shane Warne said.

"The good thing was the way he concentrated on line and length, which is what you want from that third-seamer role.

Let?s face it, when the groundsman puts in those three stumps they give you a clue where to bowl," he wrote.

"I am sure that after an hour's play on Thursday, if not earlier, Ricky would have been thinking to himself at slip: 'I could have used Hauritz here.' I've said all along that Hauritz and Graeme Swann are pretty similar as bowlers, and we saw how successful Swann was with his eight wickets in the match," Warne wrote.

"I do not know who had the final say on selection, whether it was the selectors themselves, or Ricky, or what degree of input came from Tim Nielsen, the coach. I am sure that questions will be asked over the coming days. We all make mistakes and somebody, will have to take the blame."

"From an Australia point of view it is hard to think of positives in a lost Test that results in the Ashes changing hands. But I was delighted to see Mike Hussey dig in on Sunday and show his character with a wonderful innings," Warne said.

"It was also a great result for Freddie Flintoff and I was pleased with the reception he got from the crowd at the end. He's been a real hero and I know he has the greatest respect of the Australia players. Winning the Ashes for a second time is a dream way to end your Test career.

"There is bound to be a lot more talk about why Australia did not choose Nathan Hauritz. I think this time Australia simply misread the pitch. They should have known about the history of the Oval and the way the surfaces usually pan out ? hard and flat at the start, but turning sometimes quite sharply by the end.