End of the Test road for Symonds

[Son Of Coco]

For mine we got very lucky in SA (in that Johnson and Siddle did the job themselves) and should never go into a Test series that bowling light again.

Johnson and Siddle didn't do the entire job themselves, that's where McDonald came into the picture on occasions. Mind you, I'd prefer it if we had 4 quicks (or 3 quicks and two spinners) rather than having Johnson and Siddle bowl so many overs. I think the addition of Clark or Lee will see their workload lessen considerably though. I don't know how anyone can downplay MCDonald's role so much as to almost make it non-existant.

There's no guarantee he'll play in England yet anyway, I'd say he'll be useful though...on seaming decks I can see an attack of Johnson, Siddle, Lee, and Clark playing. I'd say in the first test Watson will be called on for a few overs and he'll bat at 6. Haddin will be at 7. Hauritz will be in there. And 3 of those 4 will make up the seamers. Entirely dependent on form of course.

 

[Top_Cat]

Honestly, it's simple - if you're at 8 at Test cricket you should be one of the four best bowlers in the country. All the other little things are useful, at times (in other formats) but it's really the definition of a bits and pieces cricketer. What you've just posted is 'he does a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but nothing well.' For mine, it's an idiotic selection and that will become clearer over time. Don't get me wrong, he hasn't embarrassed himself with the ball so far at all, but the only place in the side he should play is at 6 and there's no way he's good enough with the bat, at this stage to play there.

For mine we got very lucky in SA (in that Johnson and Siddle did the job themselves) and should never go into a Test series that bowling light again.

A bit convenient to downplay McDonald's role then claim team success was due to luck, tbh. Stretching credulity a bit too considering the same team which apparently got lucky managed to resoundingly beat South Africa at home, most of their batters in good nick, immediately following a spanking in Aus. And, the difference was the bowlers with one batter batting the house down in the second Test.

Luck? Not buying it. McDonald will probably bowl better in England too.

I don't look at McDonald's selection as defensive at all. He didn't just bowling stump-to-stump. He looked a genuine wicket-taking option from what I saw. He reminds me a lot of Tony Dodemaide.

 

[aussie]

Honestly, it's simple - if you're at 8 at Test cricket you should be one of the four best bowlers in the country. All the other little things are useful, at times (in other formats) but it's really the definition of a bits and pieces cricketer. What you've just posted is 'he does a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but nothing well.' For mine, it's an idiotic selection and that will become clearer over time. Don't get me wrong, he hasn't embarrassed himself with the ball so far at all, but the only place in the side he should play is at 6 and there's no way he's good enough with the bat, at this stage to play there.

He never will be. Would more back Johnson's batting to become good enough @ 6, than expect him to ever reach those levels.

Gosh these blokes make selections seem so complicated at times..

 

[pasag]

A bit convenient to downplay McDonald's role then claim team success was due to luck, tbh. Stretching credulity a bit too considering the same team which apparently got lucky managed to resoundingly beat South Africa at home, most of their batters in good nick, immediately following a spanking in Aus. And, the difference was the bowlers with one batter batting the house down in the second Test.

Luck? Not buying it. McDonald will probably bowl better in England too.

I don't look at McDonald's selection as defensive at all. He didn't just bowling stump-to-stump. He looked a genuine wicket-taking option from what I saw. He reminds me a lot of Tony Dodemaide.

Yeah, that's what I mean by lucky. Poor selections can be masked by the rest of the team doing well. You could pick Timmy as one of your opening batsmen and still win the Ashes because everyone else performs - ie you got lucky. Winning does not vindicate selections.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, that's what I mean by lucky. Poor selections can be masked by the rest of the team doing well. You could pick Timmy as one of your opening batsmen and still win the Ashes because everyone else performs - ie you got lucky. Winning does not vindicate selections.

They can be, but not if you take note of McDonald's individual performance. He wasn't terrible, which seems to be what a few people on here are trying to make us believe.

 

[pasag]

He never will be. Would more back Johnson's batting to become good enough @ 6, than expect him to ever reach those levels.

Gosh these blokes make selections seem so complicated at times..

I don't see why not. He's pretty young and there's no reason his batting can't go to the next level.

 

[pasag]

They can be, but not if you take note of McDonald's individual performance. He wasn't terrible, which seems to be what a few people on here are trying to make us believe.

Yeah, I agree and said he didn't embarrass himself with the ball by any stretch of the imagination, just that I'd rather a proper bowler at 8 or a better batsman at 6.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, that's what I mean by lucky. Poor selections can be masked by the rest of the team doing well. You could pick Timmy as one of your opening batsmen and still win the Ashes because everyone else performs - ie you got lucky. Winning does not vindicate selections.

Not in isolation, no. But there's been plenty of comments from the guys to suggest he made a difference. Anyway, you just had to watch to see that too. The Aus team clearly improved their bowling in partnerships and I don't believe it was totally coincidence. Basically, the front-liners could rest up knowing the guy bowling wouldn't get spanked and they be back on in 20 minutes. The same could not be said with other bowlers in the side in the last 12 months.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, I agree and said he didn't embarrass himself with the ball by any stretch of the imagination, just that I'd rather a proper bowler at 8 or a better batsman at 6.

This is the crux of the issue, though; for Vic, he is a 'proper' bowler. I think you and others just getting caught up in that he looks ordinary when he's actually a decent bowler. His record speaks for itself. With the monopoly on quicks Victoria have right now, there's no way he'd be getting as much of the ball as he does if he wasn't a good bowler.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, that's what I mean by lucky. Poor selections can be masked by the rest of the team doing well. You could pick Timmy as one of your opening batsmen and still win the Ashes because everyone else performs - ie you got lucky. Winning does not vindicate selections.

Word. Plus you could also say he also benefited from the good work Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy did which enabled him to get a few cheap wickets.

I don't see why not. He's pretty young and there's no reason his batting can't go to the next level.

He would have to take steroids or sum mayn. 6 will always be to high for him in tests, maybe 7. But i can't see it happening...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Roll the clock back three years, and I could see McDonald batting at 7 on a tour of the sub-continent, when we would have like to have played two spinners, two quicks + McDonald.

I don't feel comfortable with him at 6, but I do feel as though he brings enough to the table with the ball that he can contribute as a bowler. Maybe not now with Lee and Clark fit, but with those guys out having him at 8 helped bring a degree of reliability and pressure to a bowling attack that hadn't been able to build that up at all for a year before that.

 

[pasag]

This is the crux of the issue, though; for Vic, he is a 'proper' bowler. I think you and others just getting caught up in that he looks ordinary when he's actually a decent bowler. His record speaks for itself. With the monopoly on quicks Victoria have right now, there's no way he'd be getting as much of the ball as he does if he wasn't a good bowler.

He is a decent bowler, haven't said otherwise. But not good enough to be in the side.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Word. Plus you could also say he also benefited from the good work Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy did which enabled him to get a few cheap wickets.




He would have to take steroids or sum mayn. 6 will always be to high for him in tests, maybe 7. But i can't see it happening...

See, the point is that it is very arguable that he helped out Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson more than they helped him. He provided an option which helped build pressure, allowed them to bend their back and attack, knowing that they had a reliable option up the other end.

 

[pasag]

He would have to take steroids or sum mayn. 6 will always be to high for him in tests, maybe 7. But i can't see it happening...

He seems like the hard working type. I don't see why not.

 

[aussie]

Roll the clock back three years, and I could see McDonald batting at 7 on a tour of the sub-continent, when we would have like to have played two spinners, two quicks + McDonald.

Damnnnnnnn yo. Thats a BIGGG call, gotta seriously disagree here.

I can sort of buy the argument that on a seaming wicket he would make some sense (although i did not justify in selection in SA nor for the Ashes). But surely in India 04 or 08 or Sri 04, on those flat decks he would have been smoked, plus with that technique againts spin, you are basically starting the tail from number 6.

All this McDonald love is giving me a headache dis early morning...

 

[Uppercut]

Roll the clock back three years, and I could see McDonald batting at 7 on a tour of the sub-continent, when we would have like to have played two spinners, two quicks + McDonald.

I don't feel comfortable with him at 6, but I do feel as though he brings enough to the table with the ball that he can contribute as a bowler. Maybe not now with Lee and Clark fit, but with those guys out having him at 8 helped bring a degree of reliability and pressure to a bowling attack that hadn't been able to build that up at all for a year before that.

All the talk is of McDonald at 8. Is he really better than Mitchell Johnson with the bat? I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it. Surely he'd be batting at 9, and hence be effectively a specialist bowler?

 

[Son Of Coco]

All the talk is of McDonald at 8. Is he really better than Mitchell Johnson with the bat? I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it. Surely he'd be batting at 9, and hence be effectively a specialist bowler?

Technically (going on state performances) he'd be considered better. In test performances so far he wouldn't. Given Lee and Johnson can both bat a bit, if Macca didn't pick up a few wickets in the tour matches I probably wouldn't have him in the first test played on a seaming deck. Mind you it's a tough one, as he did nothing wrong in the tests he's played (with the ball).

 

[Richard]

Basically macdonald reminds me of the kind of player England would have picked in the 90's. Not particularly good at anything, but a solid honest trier.

In the '90s? Try constantly for the last 30 years!

 

[Top_Cat]

All the talk is of McDonald at 8. Is he really better than Mitchell Johnson with the bat? I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it. Surely he'd be batting at 9, and hence be effectively a specialist bowler?

McDonald definitely a better bat. Johnson is hitting them well at the moment but I think we'll see a regression to the mean soon enough. He's scored most of his runs when he can free the arms and he's a better bat than his record would suggest but, eventually, you'd back McDonald to out-score Johnson.

 

[cowboysfan]

the aussies have made a big mistake dropping Symonds and opting for mcdonald and the the fragile Watson.I wouldnt be surprised if watson got injured in the world cup and Roy is brought back into the ashes squad.