This is why Australia will lose the Ashes

[Top_Cat]

This is not the reason why bowlers are picked to play and this is the classic reason why Australia are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment. Both Hauritz and McDonald are defensive options, they are in the side because 'they keep things tight' and 'play a role'. Last time I checked a bowlers primary responsibility is to take wickets in test cricket and neither of the above 2 are capable of doing that, McDonald is lucky to have as many wickets as he has, and Hauritz well hes just an absolute joke.

If you told Steve Waugh way back in 2001/02 that he should pick someone because he bowls line and length and is likely to keep the run rate in check but offers no wicket taking threat I think he would have run himself into a brick wall. I am not sure why this defensive mindset has crept into the Australian game off late, but its a shocking attitude to their game.

So the win in SA on the back of their bowling escaped your attention? The Aus bats were alright but the bowling unit was the one that did all work to put SA on the back-foot, via attacking bowling no less. There were no men on the fence at deep mid/cover, were slips everywhere, etc.

Anyway, McDonald took wickets, dunno why you're banging on about him being nothing more than a defensive option. His figures blew out in the 3rd Test but he was one of the better bowlers at Kingsmead and was always threatening, not just sitting on a length. He's obviously never going to be a spectacular bowler but neither is just a stump-to-stump merchant. Saying he presented no wicket-taking threat is flat-out wrong. I'm sure Jack, as someone who's faced/trained with him will confirm he's no dibbly-dobber.

You just hate him because he's a ranga. Admit it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That doesnt really mean much. Lee has been rubbish, and McDonald has been slightly less rubbish. This is test match cricket, you need 20 wickets to win a game and as far as Im concerned, I disagree with the selectors logic in picking Hauritz and McDonald because both of them are not capable of taking test match wickets. Their role is to keep things tight which quite frankly is a very negative option and is not what test cricket is about.

Again, I advise you to look at what he's actually done, rather than just not liking him because he doesn't look exciting.

Either that, or instead of posting just put your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalala'.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Same for me too. Don't know who'd put those names in the same sentence, really. Only Aussies would. The rest of us see them for what they really are.

Yes, considering we've had the most successful team of the past decade and a bit I'm sure we'd be blinded by mediocrity. Not sure the rest of us always know what they're talking about to be honest.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I understand, but I do not understand how any rational person would want to have McDonald in the side as one of their 4 bowlers. To me its saying, hey hes better than our best fast bowler when hes rubbish so thats why hes there.

I think I've said possibly a dozen times now that he wouldn't be there if the others were performing to their abilities.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is not the reason why bowlers are picked to play and this is the classic reason why Australia are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment. Both Hauritz and McDonald are defensive options, they are in the side because 'they keep things tight' and 'play a role'. Last time I checked a bowlers primary responsibility is to take wickets in test cricket and neither of the above 2 are capable of doing that, McDonald is lucky to have as many wickets as he has, and Hauritz well hes just an absolute joke.

I like how you didn't quote the rest about the wickets he has taken A bowler has two possible roles in test cricket, the first is to take wickets. The second is to help to create pressure so the wickets come. You may not always take the wicket, but you can certainly help to create the chance. A team full of bowlers who only try to do the first is probably not a great option as you need someone who will do some of the dirty work. Obviously a team full of fast, accurate wicket-takers would be the ideal make up but you can't always have that.

Disagree that McDonald is lucky though, his past record suggests you can't be lucky at so many different levels for so long.

Not championing Hauritz here either...we've been spoilt by Warne and I don't really enjoy watching Hauritz bowl.

 

[Jakester1288]

Mate, if Dussey is a better FC bat than Watson, I will eat my computer.

Fitting that you have a whale as your avatar.

I hope your hungry.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

The ball wasn't really doing all sorts, nor were the bowlers consistently pitching it in good areas. They were all well below their best (Morkel maybe excepted because he's yet to show that he's that good anyway), and Hughes capitalised. Full credit to him for doing that, but that's all he did. He 100% did not make superlative bowling look average.

It's no coicindence that everyone other batsman struggled when Hughes wasn't at the crease. South Africa bowled no differently to the other batsman then what they did to Hughes, the difference was that Hughes was just too good and was making good delieveries seem allot worse then what they were. Just because the batsman can make the bowler look like his bowling below-par in difficult conditions, doesn't mean his a crap bowler or that his bowling crap, it's just more credit to the batsman. The epitome of batsmanship isn't playing a gritty innings against quality bowling when they're at their best, especially when you can play a demanding one, like Hughes did.

 

[pup11]

Mate, if Dussey is a better FC bat than Watson, I will eat my computer.

Have a look at Dussey's record for Victoria from 2000 onwards.

It's ordinary, but with the odd purple patch.

I also think North is somewhat overrated by many on this forum.

Dussey and North are both seasoned campaigners now, and both understand their games pretty well now, Watto on his day is good as anyone with the bat, and probably would prove himself to be a much better batsman than North and Dussey, if given a long run, and his fitness might be the only hurdle in him doing so.

Though Watto isn't a batsman without his flaws either, I still believe he isn't too good when it comes to playing decent spin bowlers, doesn't use his feet to them, and only relies on the sweep shot to bail himself out of trouble against them, and like Dussey, Watto too has this habit of playing the ball away from his body when playing the quicks.

So currently there isn't much to choose between North, Watto and Dussey on the batting front, the only thing that gives North the edge as a batsman is, he is a bit more reliable than Watto and Dussey.

 

[oitoitoi]

As the OP perhaps I should have explained my views a bit more.

The reason I don't think Australia will win with Macdonald is that he upsets the balance of the side, and IMO will be little more than a passenger in England. SA is a hell of lot more conducive to his breed of bowling than England these days, especially in at the back end of the english summer. English batsmen are raised on his brand of bowling, I think it's highly unlikely that he'll trouble them much and could be Pietersen fodder. If he's picked it will almost definitely be as a no.7 as part of a 5 man attack, however the job he's expected to do with the ball is ideally fulfilled by a part time bowler such as a Symonds or Sehwag or Gayle, one of containment rather than attacking. Obviously his batting is not of the caliber of those players, and while he's obviously a superior bowler I wouldn't expect him to have vastly superior results with the ball at test level in England. His batting IMO will fail against the swinging ball and will not be good enough for a number 7, maybe a number 8. Also there is the problem of over rates, as a bowler who will merely contain, you ideally need him to increase the over rate like a spinner however this is unlikely, creating more problems for Ponting, which as we saw in Nagpur can have big consequences. Basically I think he will be a passenger, sure he'll contribute, but I don't think it will be anywhere near enough to warrant a place in the side. I would expect Lee to produce similar results with the bat and slightly better with the ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

As the OP perhaps I should have explained my views a bit more.

The reason I don't think Australia will win with Macdonald is that he upsets the balance of the side, and IMO will be little more than a passenger in England. SA is a hell of lot more conducive to his breed of bowling than England these days, especially in at the back end of the english summer. English batsmen are raised on his brand of bowling, I think it's highly unlikely that he'll trouble them much and could be Pietersen fodder. If he's picked it will almost definitely be as a no.7 as part of a 5 man attack, however the job he's expected to do with the ball is ideally fulfilled by a part time bowler such as a Symonds or Sehwag or Gayle, one of containment rather than attacking. Obviously his batting is not of the caliber of those players, and while he's obviously a superior bowler I wouldn't expect him to have vastly superior results with the ball at test level in England. His batting IMO will fail against the swinging ball and will not be good enough for a number 7, maybe a number 8. Also there is the problem of over rates, as a bowler who will merely contain, you ideally need him to increase the over rate like a spinner however this is unlikely, creating more problems for Ponting, which as we saw in Nagpur can have big consequences. Basically I think he will be a passenger, sure he'll contribute, but I don't think it will be anywhere near enough to warrant a place in the side. I would expect Lee to produce similar results with the bat and slightly better with the ball.

McDonald's not likely to play anyway though. And even if he does, it'll be as a bowling allrounder at 8. He's not going to bat 6 or 7 unless it gets down to the fifth Test and Australia need to win to tie the series, or something.

North will be batting 6, most likely. If the selectors decide to play Hauritz and Watson is fit, Watson might play instead. But if Watson's not fit, North will definitely be slotting in at 6.

 

[social]

As the OP perhaps I should have explained my views a bit more.

The reason I don't think Australia will win with Macdonald is that he upsets the balance of the side, and IMO will be little more than a passenger in England. SA is a hell of lot more conducive to his breed of bowling than England these days, especially in at the back end of the english summer. English batsmen are raised on his brand of bowling, I think it's highly unlikely that he'll trouble them much and could be Pietersen fodder. If he's picked it will almost definitely be as a no.7 as part of a 5 man attack, however the job he's expected to do with the ball is ideally fulfilled by a part time bowler such as a Symonds or Sehwag or Gayle, one of containment rather than attacking. Obviously his batting is not of the caliber of those players, and while he's obviously a superior bowler I wouldn't expect him to have vastly superior results with the ball at test level in England. His batting IMO will fail against the swinging ball and will not be good enough for a number 7, maybe a number 8. Also there is the problem of over rates, as a bowler who will merely contain, you ideally need him to increase the over rate like a spinner however this is unlikely, creating more problems for Ponting, which as we saw in Nagpur can have big consequences. Basically I think he will be a passenger, sure he'll contribute, but I don't think it will be anywhere near enough to warrant a place in the side. I would expect Lee to produce similar results with the bat and slightly better with the ball.

Some fair points but, to be fair to McDonald, he is an infinitely superior bowler to the guys you've mentioned and, unless it is an incredibly dry summer, could be expected to perform reasonably in Eng

Whether that is enough to justify inclusion in the team, time will tell

 

[tooextracool]

So the win in SA on the back of their bowling escaped your attention? The Aus bats were alright but the bowling unit was the one that did all work to put SA on the back-foot, via attacking bowling no less. There were no men on the fence at deep mid/cover, were slips everywhere, etc.

Anyway, McDonald took wickets, dunno why you're banging on about him being nothing more than a defensive option. His figures blew out in the 3rd Test but he was one of the better bowlers at Kingsmead and was always threatening, not just sitting on a length. He's obviously never going to be a spectacular bowler but neither is just a stump-to-stump merchant. Saying he presented no wicket-taking threat is flat-out wrong. I'm sure Jack, as someone who's faced/trained with him will confirm he's no dibbly-dobber.

You just hate him because he's a ranga. Admit it.

I dont think either of us is going to change our stance on this. I think you, rightfully or wrongfully, rate McDonald's bowling abilities but I dont. And no, I dont think McDonald taking 5 wickets in 4 innings in South Africa is supposed to prove that he offers a wicket taking threat, heck even Symonds used to offer similar returns.

And yes I do know that Australia's bowling unit was instrumental in the Australian success in SA. But that was because of Johnson's and Siddle's efforts rather than McDonald.

Btw, who is Jack?

 

[tooextracool]

Disagree that McDonald is lucky though, his past record suggests you can't be lucky at so many different levels for so long. .

Indeed, and he wont be for very long. You seem to think his record in tests is a rip roaring success when the reality is that its actually not that good and is already on the decline. I hope he plays against England because it will mean 2 things:
1) that England have one end where there is really no wicket taking threat
2) that England have probably already dealt with some of the other Aussie bowlers pretty well.

 

[social]

Indeed, and he wont be for very long. You seem to think his record in tests is a rip roaring success when the reality is that its actually not that good and is already on the decline. I hope he plays against England because it will mean 2 things:
1) that England have one end where there is really no wicket taking threat
2) that England have probably already dealt with some of the other Aussie bowlers pretty well.

Not necessarily, it may simply mean that the Oz selectors want him in the team from day 1

Btw, ANY BOWLER is a wicket taking threat and especially against a team that were recently bowled out for 50

 

[Top_Cat]

I dont think either of us is going to change our stance on this. I think you, rightfully or wrongfully, rate McDonald's bowling abilities but I dont. And no, I dont think McDonald taking 5 wickets in 4 innings in South Africa is supposed to prove that he offers a wicket taking threat, heck even Symonds used to offer similar returns.

Again, you bracket him with a part-timer which is, in my view, a mistake. You don't get the number of overs he has for Vic over the years without being quite good. He's been a genuine all-rounder for Vic as a pace bowler when they've had no shortage of them on their list.

Also, I think you and others make the mistake of assuming those of us defending him think he's a world-beater. You don't have to be a gun to be valuable to a team. Can promise you there were more gun openers than Geoff Marsh around in the Aussie set-up in the 90's but he had a specific job to do. Leave the world-beating to the world-beaters, guys like McDonald are the glue that binds the team. I've long thought the reason for India's lack of Test success relative to raw talent in the team has been the focus on picking guns first and the team second. You don't have to average over 40 with the bat or under 30 with the ball to be a valuable Test cricketer if used properly.

And yes I do know that Australia's bowling unit was instrumental in the Australian success in SA. But that was because of Johnson's and Siddle's efforts rather than McDonald.

How do you explain all the talk publicly emanating from said bowling unit about McDonald's bowling? Sure he didn't get their figures but he did his job and picked up a couple of wickets along the way. In the context of a team struggling for confidence as the Aussies were after the home season, that's priceless. And, tbh, I'd bet McDonald would take more from being rated by his bowling unit than whatever the press says about him.

Btw, who is Jack?

Vic_Orthdox.

 

[tooextracool]

Btw, ANY BOWLER is a wicket taking threat and especially against a team that were recently bowled out for 50

I dont hold much confidence in the England batting, I actually have more faith in their bowlers so I guess you never know. However, if England bat half decently, I think McDonald will be a stroll in the park.

 

[tooextracool]

Again, you bracket him with a part-timer which is, in my view, a mistake. You don't get the number of overs he has for Vic over the years without being quite good. He's been a genuine all-rounder for Vic as a pace bowler when they've had no shortage of them on their list.

Interesting that, and it has nothing to do with his batting? His FC batting record is somewhat decent and looking at some of the games, it looks like hes batting in the top 5 for Victoria. I dont think hes good enough to bat near the top 5 for Australia(or top 7 for that matter). Theres a clear difference in roles here, for Victoria hes being picked as a genuine all rounder (or perhaps a batting all rounder). For Australia, if he plays, he will probably be picked as one of your 4 bowlers. Would Victoria play him as one of their 4 bowlers and would Victoria play him if it wasnt for his batting?

Also, I think you and others make the mistake of assuming those of us defending him think he's a world-beater. You don't have to be a gun to be valuable to a team. Can promise you there were more gun openers than Geoff Marsh around in the Aussie set-up in the 90's but he had a specific job to do. Leave the world-beating to the world-beaters, guys like McDonald are the glue that binds the team. I've long thought the reason for India's lack of Test success relative to raw talent in the team has been the focus on picking guns first and the team second. You don't have to average over 40 with the bat or under 30 with the ball to be a valuable Test cricketer if used properly.

So do you think that McDonald offers something to this Australian side which Stuart Clark couldn't?

How do you explain all the talk publicly emanating from said bowling unit about McDonald's bowling? Sure he didn't get their figures but he did his job and picked up a couple of wickets along the way. In the context of a team struggling for confidence as the Aussies were after the home season, that's priceless. And, tbh, I'd bet McDonald would take more from being rated by his bowling unit than whatever the press says about him.

Teammates are always likely to talk up their own, you can look at the number of times Flintoff talked up Geraint Jones despite the fact that he had nothing going for him except for the fact that they were both mates.

Nonetheless, given the number of advocates on this forum for McDonald, Im willing to have a further look at him before I make any further comments regarding his abilities.

However, Nathan Hauritz on the other hand is and always will remain completely worthless

 

[pup11]

Interesting that, and it has nothing to do with his batting? His FC batting record is somewhat decent and looking at some of the games, it looks like hes batting in the top 5 for Victoria. I dont think hes good enough to bat near the top 5 for Australia(or top 7 for that matter). Theres a clear difference in roles here, for Victoria hes being picked as a genuine all rounder (or perhaps a batting all rounder). For Australia, if he plays, he will probably be picked as one of your 4 bowlers. Would Victoria play him as one of their 4 bowlers and would Victoria play him if it wasnt for his batting?

That they don't need to do, because McDonald chips in as genuine all-rounder, who can perform with both bat and ball for them, 111 FC wkts @ 29.67, and 2211 FC runs @ 36.85 are pretty decent returns for an all-rounder imo, and he hasn't disgraced himself with the ball at the international level either.

So do you think that McDonald offers something to this Australian side which Stuart Clark couldn't?

No he doesn't, because Clark is a much, much better bowler than McDonald because of the nip and bounce he produces of a good length area, but as PEWS said, realistically McDonald isn't competing for a spot with him, its North and Watto that he is competing for a spot with.

Teammates are always likely to talk up their own, you can look at the number of times Flintoff talked up Geraint Jones despite the fact that he had nothing going for him except for the fact that they were both mates.

Nonetheless, given the number of advocates on this forum for McDonald, Im willing to have a further look at him before I make any further comments regarding his abilities.

However, Nathan Hauritz on the other hand is and always will remain completely worthless

Well if Flintoff talked up Jones, then it was regarding the partnership that they had during the 3rd Ashes test in 2005, and well what's wrong about appreciating something good your team-mates did.

The Aussies did the same, because they realise what McDonald brings to the table (no pun intended), and they appreciate that, its true that Johnson and Siddle were the main architects of the Australia' win in South Africa, but its also true they couldn't have bowled all day from each end, that's where Hilfy and McDonald played their part.

...And yeah, you can say Hauritz is a worthless spinner, but that is only true when one talks about the longer format of the game, in limited overs cricket he is fine bowler, and its not his fault, that despite playing next to no FC cricket in the last few seasons, he is considered jack of all trades by the Aussie selectors.

 

[Prince EWS]

No he doesn't, because Clark is a much, much better bowler than McDonald because of the nip and bounce he produces of a good length area, but as PEWS said, realistically McDonald isn't competing for a spot with him, its North and Watto that he is competing for a spot with.

Actually, I was saying the exact opposite.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As the OP perhaps I should have explained my views a bit more.

The reason I don't think Australia will win with Macdonald is that he upsets the balance of the side, and IMO will be little more than a passenger in England

Interesting, especially given he balanced the side out nicely after the first two tests in Australia. I don't think McDonald will play in every test now Clark and Lee are available. But I think the sides are equally balanced with Clark or McDonald in the team. Clark bowling well is a better wicket-taking option though.