Nathan Hauritz

Warren Lynam/Sunshine Coast Daily

Poll

What do you think is to blame for our Ashes loss?

This poll ended on 24 September 2009.

• Ricky Ponting - his time is up
• 14%
• Warne is right, we needed Hauritz
• 28%
• Nobody is to blame, they were very evenly matched
• 57%
• Who cares?
• 0%
• What's the Ashes?
• 0%

This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.

Shane Warne says the decision to leave spinner Nathan Hauritz out of the deciding Ashes Test was "staggering" and someone will have to take the blame for it.

England's 197-run win on day four of the fifth and final Test at The Oval gave them the series 2-1.

The south London ground has a reputation for assisting spin bowlers.

But Australia chose not to recall off-spinner Hauritz, the lone specialist slow bowler in the squad.

Instead they opted to stick with the four-man pace attack that had bowled them to victory by an innings and 80 runs in the fourth Test at Headingley, a ground that traditionally favours the quicks.

England did field an off-spinner at the Oval in Graeme Swann and he took a valuable eight wickets for 158 runs in the match.

"There is bound to be a lot more talk about why Australia did not choose Nathan Hauritz," Australia leg-spin great Warne wrote in his Times column.

"Personally, I have to say that I was staggered by the decision," Warne added.

"I would always want to have a spinner in the side for variety's sake, but I think this time Australia simply misread the pitch."

Groundsman Bill Gordon copped some flak in the Australian press for preparing a 'result' wicket rather than the traditional batting-friendly surface for which the Oval is known.

"The pitch wasn't a minefield, but it was ordinary," Warne said. "I am not making a big thing about it, because it produced some decent cricket.

"Other than Australia's mad couple of hours in the first innings (when they were bowled out for 160), the scores were not that low.

"In a way, you could say that it was a typical Oval wicket - except the first day was more like your normal day four."

However, Warne stressed: "I do not believe that it was doctored in favour of England. It is not as though they picked two spinners, and they couldn't have known that Hauritz would be left out."

Warne though said Hauritz's omission raised questions for the selectors and Australia captain Ricky Ponting who, in Hauritz's absence, had to rely on part-time spinner Marcus North.

"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.

"We all make mistakes and somebody, somewhere, will have to take the blame for this one.

"Regardless of that, 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 Hauritz and Graeme Swann are pretty similar bowlers, and we saw how successful Swann was with his eight wickets in the match."

Warne said conditions had made it a bad toss to lose for Ponting.

"If Ricky had called correctly and batted first, things probably would have been different. England had to win and effectively they gambled fifty-fifty on getting the opportunity to put runs on the board first time," he said.

Asked about the non-selection of Hauritz, Ponting said on Sunday: "We probably got that wrong.

"I don't think anyone in their wildest dreams thought the wicket would play the way it did. In hindsight, a specialist spinner would have been pretty handy out there," he said.

What do you think? Could Australia have won the series with Hauritz? Or was it just not our turn? Leave a comment below.