He also bowled 50+ overs. Cant say that the wickets that he took were of particularly special deliveries either. There are times when bowlers pick up wickets through sheer luck and there are other times when they do because they actually deserve them and in Hauritz case it was the former.
Last i checked, he got four.
Eloquent to the end. I wonder how many series losses it'll take before it starts becoming embarrassing. Want that to happen badly.
I think you're being a little harsh on Johnson. The guy obviously has something about him given how many wickets he gets with catches behind the wicket bowling to right-handed batsmen. And I'm not talking so much about people who go chasing a wide half-volley (though they are wickets too), but he also gets them with people playing defensive shots around off-stump. He's obviously a pretty tricky bowler to face when he's angling it across you, and gets some movement off the wicket at times. He's far from a complete package but he's a long way from the biggest problem Australia have in their attack right now.
Ponting wanting something doesnt exactly make it the right decision though. Hauritz should never have been selected and neither should Krejza so at the end of the day its hard to justify why you'd want to make the same mistake again. When you pick poor bowlers, the worst scenario that can happen is that they take wickets and then you are stuck with having to play them again.
Katich.
Nah, he's got the "troubled soul with the weight of the world on my shoulders" look down but IMO he's just not angry enough to do anything about it, and certainly not to drag a whole team kicking and screaming with him.
Catch the India series? Was heaps angreh there.
Touche - had forgotten about that.
In that short spell, he looked quite good. Sometimes could not control his inswing into McKenzie, probably because of the windy conditions. He mixed away going delivery among his inswingers well. As I said earlier, he is getting better every match, and could be a Hughesy kind of bowler in the years to come.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/30/australia-south-africa-cricket-test
Expected much better stuff from perhaps the greatest cricket historian.
I thought Gideon was pretty much on the money..http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/30/australia-south-africa-cricket-test
Was awesome in India too.^^ Has a test bowling average in the mid-20s as well, after three matches, taking 4.33333 wickets per match.
Yeah, I agree with this strongly. I'm far from a Hayden fan in the grand scheme of things - in fact I'd rather watch Ashley Giles bat than him - but I'm sure he and indeed many others over the years have had similar poor runs of form without having their place questioned to the ridiculous extent is has been with Hayden. He's quite clearly having a bad run but that happens to everyone - it doesn't mean he's declined or that all he's done before is suddenly worthless. What we're talking about here is just two poor series in a row amongst a career where he established himself as the number one opener on his generation... and the second series hasn't even finished yet!
The same could be said of the English attacks of the 90s.I thought Gideon was pretty much on the money..
One thing about next years ashes though.. it won't be as fun watching them dismantle a weak Australian side as it was in 2005 when they destroyed a full strength unit..
Bit sad.
Especially when the team has lost two series in the span of 3 months. There has to someone who can be the whipping boy. And Hayden has not exactly helped his cause.
Nah, I remembered India. Two Tests isn't a series though, so New Zealand doesn't count.
The fact that people are actually admitting these are the reasons they want him dropped leaves me bashing my head against the wall. I know that's the case, but that's a long way from actually being a good reason to drop someone.