This is why Australia will lose the Ashes

[Ausage]

The OP is plainly a ridiculous comment designed purely for baiting. McDonald might not be the best player going around (although I think he's underrated by many), but considering the Australians just beat their nearest competitors at home with him in the side the word "never" is a blatantly absurd statement.

I'll be worried when Mitch goes down.

 

[Howsie]

SA were hammered in the first 2 tests (let's not forget that they both should've been innings victories if not for ridiculously conservative captaincy) because Oz has the best pace bowling attack in the world and Macdonald was part of that

He's as ridiculously underrated as is Eng's spin bowling advantage overrated

Seriously, what do you think Johnson, Siddle & co will do to a lineup that the WI dismissed for 50 when NONE of the WI bowlers would make the Oz squad?

I'm pretty sure Edwards would get into the Australian team, he has been bowling really well as of late.

And yeah I agree with most people here, McDonald is better then some people make him out to be. He might not be bowling at 90mph but he gets his job done.

 

[pup11]

They were hammered because their bowlers - who in basic ability are superior to Australia's - were unable to outdo the Australians.

I don't agree with the statement that the South African quicks are better then Australian quicks in any given way, I think people tend to forget that Australian quicks had the Proteas on the ropes, plenty of times even when they were playing in Australia, the only difference was, that they weren't able to put finishes touches to their work back in Australia, a mistake they didn't repeat in South Africa.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Watson sits out training with knee injury | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Watson will never be fit for 5 tests in a row, which means Macdonald will play, and no team with Macdonald in will ever win the ashes.

Are you still going on about MacDonald? It's ok not to like the guy, but you have to take what happened in SA into account at some stage.

 

[pup11]

Watto's injury without doubt is a big blow, as a Watto fan it would be really disappointing to see him miss his second Ashes series in a row because of injury, I hope his recent problem is not serious and he is available for the whole series.

Though gotta admit, things aren't looking too good from Watto's perspective, he has hardly played much cricket in recent times, but still he is frequently having these injury problems, and this might make the Aussie think-tank, think twice before picking him in the final XI of a test match.

 

[Noble One]

Watson sits out training with knee injury | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Watson will never be fit for 5 tests in a row, which means Macdonald will play, and no team with Macdonald in will ever win the ashes.

Never realised Tim MacDonald was on the verge of Test selection. Interesting to replace an all-rounder with a mediocre paceman.

Andrew McDonald on the other hand is a very reliable all-rounder. Statistically one of the finest bowlers in Shield Cricket over the previous 5 years. Plays a specific role for the side, and does it well.

He may not look overly threatening, but bowlers who can bowl wicket to wicket for 8-10 overs straight are always useful.

 

[Jakester1288]

McDonald is very underrated. He isn't the best bowler you will ever see, but he just bowls tight, gets through his overs quickly, bowls stump to stump all day and picks up the odd wicket whilst being economical.

For this Ashes series, IMO McDonald should be picked before Lee, but Clark should be selected before both.

I've said it 1000 times, but this should be our bowling attack.

Johnson
Siddle
Clark
McDonald/Hauritz (depending on the conditions)

Is he actually going to be taken out of the squad? Is he going to be replaced, and not play in the Ashes?

At 6, if Watson isn't bowling, we should have North. He hasn't done anything wrong, and has played well. If Watson can bowl, and is deemed fit to last the game or tour (which I doubt more and more every day) we should have him. He is about on par with North as a batsmen, and it's only their bowling at splits them. North is a batsmen who can have a trundle, and Watson is a batting allrounder. If he is judged unfit to play or bowl, a replacement should be brought in.

In terms of replacements, IMO Hodge should be the front runner. If the selectors didn't have his cards marked for whatever reason, I'd say he would have played a few more tests since his last test match. I am not keen of Ferguson, there is probably someone else I am forgetting though.

EDIT: The guy who I am forgetting is David Hussey. He should be brought into the squad is Watson is omitted.

 

[inbox24]

Yeah, you're forgetting Hussey. No other non injured player in Australia has a batting record to match that, surprisingly Rogers is the closest with 50. I've said it time and time again but they keep picking him in the wrong format and then complain that he's not a good enough player blah blah blah. If only they gave him a chance like they gave his brother four years ago.

 

[Jakester1288]

Yeah, you're forgetting Hussey.

Yeah, that's the one.

He's not actually in form at the moment, his FC season was poor, especially by his standards. However, Hussey > North > Watson on batting, IMO. There isn't much in it, though. Hussey is slightly above North, and North and Watson are almost equal.

 

[superkingdave]

Can't see England bowling Australia out twice with Mcdonald at 8 and Johnson at 9. As long as the last two are Siddle and Clark I think they will have enough bowling as well. With Hauritz in the side I think they might struggle if they had Ronald as part of a 4 man attack as well.

 

[Jakester1288]

Can't see England bowling Australia out twice with Mcdonald at 8 and Johnson at 9. As long as the last two are Siddle and Clark I think they will have enough bowling as well. With Hauritz in the side I think they might struggle if they had Ronald as part of a 4 man attack as well.

I agree with this. Our top and middle order isn't exactly setting the world on fire, but we bat deep enough to counter this. Honestly, we bat all the way down to 11 in any line up we name, unless it features Hilfenhaus. Clark, Hauritz, Siddle, Lee, Johnson etc are all decent batsmen, Johnson is a good batsmen, and Lee, pre-injury, was batting above Johnson, and making regular contributions, but lacked consistency. Depending on the role the selectors will pick him to play, McDonald could well feature on this list as well.

 

[superkingdave]

Siddle and Clark are in the same class as Anderson imo.(with the bat)

If Australia named a side that had Johnson at 8 followed by Siddle, Clark and Hilfenhaus, England would be pretty confident of dealing with Australia's tail imo. Similarly if England had Sidebottom, Anderson, Onions (though I rate Sidebottom as a slightly better batter than Siddle, Clark)

 

[Richard]

There's no point in saying they're superior if they bowled worse in their own conditions. On average they may be considered to be, but Dale Steyn is much better than anyone in his own team on his day, and I'd have Johnson in second before sorting out the rest.

Not sure how Morne Morkel is basically better than many in the Aussie team though. Would have Siddle miles in front on current performances, even though he's only played a few tests.

They are superior, they just underperformed. Steyn bowled well twice out of six Tests; Ntini should be better than all the Aussies bar Johnson; Morne Morkel is pretty poor currently and would've been dropped sooner if they'd been losing (he was only retained due to the "don't change a winning team" nonsense); Siddle is decent; McDonald is below-average; Hilfenhaus clearly bowled poorly that series.

South Africa's bowlers should have outbowled Australia's accross the six Tests; they did not, so thus they underperformed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

They are superior, they just underperformed. Steyn bowled well twice out of six Tests; Ntini should be better than all the Aussies bar Johnson; Morne Morkel is pretty poor currently and would've been dropped sooner if they'd been losing (he was only retained due to the "don't change a winning team" nonsense); Siddle is decent; McDonald is below-average; Hilfenhaus clearly bowled poorly that series.

South Africa's bowlers should have outbowled Australia's accross the six Tests; they did not, so thus they underperformed.

Well, given that most think Ntini is inconsistent at best these days, Morkel is poor, and Kallis is useful in the role he plays I don't think they're too far ahead if at all. If Steyn bowled well twice out of six tests that's no one's fault but his own. Ntini would be on par with Siddle at best when comparing their performances over the tests they played in. If we are going to grant allowances for being out of form then lets throw in injuries and say that a bowling attack with an in-form Lee, Clark, Siddle and Johnson wouldn't be considered inferior to anything SA could put out.

I agree that SA probably should have outbowled Australia's bowlers. But, given the lack of experience in the Australian attack, it's not unfeasible to suggest that SA wouldn't have been that superior, if at all, even if they had lived up to their potential in SA. The Aussies bowled very well.

 

[oitoitoi]

I agree with Richard, I honestly don't think Australia were exceptional in those first 2 tests (Johnson aside) and that SA lost because their bowling attack basically didn't turn up, the whole side apart from De Villiers looked rusty. The bowler's lengths were far too short, they hadn't adjusted to their own conditions. Even johnson recently stated that SA were the unofficial no.1 side in the world. In that final test when they finally came to the party (to an extent) it was a truer reflection of the sides' ability.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I agree with Richard, I honestly don't think Australia were exceptional in those first 2 tests (Johnson aside) and that SA lost because their bowling attack basically didn't turn up, the whole side apart from De Villiers looked rusty. The bowler's lengths were far too short, they hadn't adjusted to their own conditions. Even johnson recently stated that SA were the unofficial no.1 side in the world. In that final test when they finally came to the party (to an extent) it was a truer reflection of the sides' ability.

It's easy to say a team finally comes to the party when the other team has already sewn up the series. SA were lucky to get away with a win in Australia. The foot didn't come off the throat in SA quite so easily.

Given you can't seem to recognise McDonald's value to the team in any of the tests I'm not surprised really.

If SA can't adjust to their own conditions, then I'm not really sure what they're doing. I'm not claiming Australia should be vastly superior by the way, because they're obviously not. But they didn't let SA into the series there until it was all over. This was partly due to Hughes playing a much greater role than Hayden had managed in Australia and even moreso to the way the bowling unit performed.

 

[.matt]

Watson sits out training with knee injury | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Watson will never be fit for 5 tests in a row, which means Macdonald will play, and no team with Macdonald in will ever win the ashes.

If anything Watson out means a bigger chance of us winning... We don't need McDonald or Watson imo.

 

[social]

I agree with Richard, I honestly don't think Australia were exceptional in those first 2 tests (Johnson aside) and that SA lost because their bowling attack basically didn't turn up, the whole side apart from De Villiers looked rusty. The bowler's lengths were far too short, they hadn't adjusted to their own conditions. Even johnson recently stated that SA were the unofficial no.1 side in the world. In that final test when they finally came to the party (to an extent) it was a truer reflection of the sides' ability.

After the 2nd test in Oz, SA were unofficially the best

Then SA had 2 chances to claim the no. 1 ranking and it was back to business as usual

 

[tooextracool]

There's no point in saying they're superior if they bowled worse in their own conditions. On average they may be considered to be, but Dale Steyn is much better than anyone in his own team on his day, and I'd have Johnson in second before sorting out the rest.

Not sure how Morne Morkel is basically better than many in the Aussie team though. Would have Siddle miles in front on current performances, even though he's only played a few tests.

I've long felt that South Africa's bowling attack is extremely overrated. Dale Steyn is the cog that supports it and the rest of them just revolve around him. Morne Morkel, even to his biggest fan, cannot be considered more than mediocre, and Ntini is essentially a spent force in international cricket these days struggling to make the limited overs side and unable to produce the goods consistently in the longer format. Their batting won them the series in Australia, much like it did over in England.

 

[tooextracool]

McDonald is very underrated. He isn't the best bowler you will ever see, but he just bowls tight, gets through his overs quickly, bowls stump to stump all day and picks up the odd wicket whilst being economical.

For this Ashes series, IMO McDonald should be picked before Lee, but Clark should be selected before both.

I've said it 1000 times, but this should be our bowling attack.

Johnson
Siddle
Clark
McDonald/Hauritz (depending on the conditions)

Is he actually going to be taken out of the squad? Is he going to be replaced, and not play in the Ashes?

At 6, if Watson isn't bowling, we should have North. He hasn't done anything wrong, and has played well. If Watson can bowl, and is deemed fit to last the game or tour (which I doubt more and more every day) we should have him. He is about on par with North as a batsmen, and it's only their bowling at splits them. North is a batsmen who can have a trundle, and Watson is a batting allrounder. If he is judged unfit to play or bowl, a replacement should be brought in.

In terms of replacements, IMO Hodge should be the front runner. If the selectors didn't have his cards marked for whatever reason, I'd say he would have played a few more tests since his last test match. I am not keen of Ferguson, there is probably someone else I am forgetting though.

EDIT: The guy who I am forgetting is David Hussey. He should be brought into the squad is Watson is omitted.

I dont care how highly you rate McDonald, there is no bloody way he is better than Lee. Lee could hobble up to the crease and bowl better IMO and Im not even a Lee mark.