This is why Australia will lose the Ashes

[Son Of Coco]

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?

Well, he took wickets in Australia too...

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I don't think he's a rip roaring success, but I don't think he's complete **** either. Already on the decline after 1 poor test? Statisticians of the world unite!

Given England's efforts in the WI I reckon I could be a wicket taking threat on my day

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Kallis, Amla and De Villiers surely must rank up there with at least SOME of
England's bats. McDonald got them, so I don't think half-decent will cut it for the English.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Im done talking about McDonald's bowling, but his batting is absolutely shocking. Dont care what his FC record is, theres no way hes capable of being top 7 for Australia, Id put Mitch ahead of him to be honest.

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.

Err, except everyone in this thread has been talking about picking McDonald as one of the 4 bowlers in the side. As i said earlier, thats because hes not good enough to bat top 7.

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.

Indeed, but its meaningless because teammates will rarely put one of their own down, unless they have the initials KP.

...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.

'Fine bowler', is pushing it a little bit. Hes simply not as rubbish in the shorter format than he is in the longer format.

 

[pup11]

Actually, I was saying the exact opposite.

Yeah, my bad, read it in haste....

 

[Uppercut]

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

That's so ridiculously overused. They had one collapse in about a year (on a very difficult pitch against some ****ign inspired bowling from Taylor and Benn) and noone has shut up about it since despite their batsmen scoring as many runs as they liked in every game since.

It's not like Australia weren't reduced to 20/5 (eventually all out for 167) against the exact same attack a few months earlier. Having had their arse saved by someone who won't even be anywhere near the side this summer.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah agree with you on that one, although I still dont rate the England batting very highly.

 

[social]

That's so ridiculously overused. They had one collapse in about a year (on a very difficult pitch against some ****ign inspired bowling from Taylor and Benn) and noone has shut up about it since despite their batsmen scoring as many runs as they liked in every game since.

It's not like Australia weren't reduced to 20/5 (eventually all out for 167) against the exact same attack a few months earlier. Having had their arse saved by someone who won't even be anywhere near the side this summer.

Eng are a very poor batting lineup - no-one gets bowled out for 50 unless that is the case

BTW, you do realise that the Oz team was mercilessly hammered for beating the same team 2-0

Imagine if we'd lost!

 

[GIMH]

Eng are a very poor batting lineup - no-one gets bowled out for 50 unless that is the case

BTW, you do realise that the Oz team was mercilessly hammered for beating the same team 2-0

Imagine if we'd lost!

Not really.

Strauss has had good spells and bad spells, with the captaincy there has been more good than bad, and he is one of the better openers around.

Cook has not yet lived up to the potential he was thought to have three years ago, and has a poor conversion rate. A good batsman though, certainly not a liability or someone who screams 'poor'

Bopara is unproven, but three centuries in his last three innings is decent enough. Sure, the bowling wasn't great etc, you can only score runs against what's there. Let's see.

Pietersen. World-class. One of the best batsmen in the world, pretty sure there is no side that would pass him up.

Collingwood is a hit and miss batsman, but is far from poor and has played some absolutely fine innings in his time. Nagpur 06, Adelaide 06, Edgbaston 08, these spring to mind.

Prior hasn't done loads, people will point to his poor series against India two years, how about we take a look at his series in Sri Lanka a few months later? There are clear signs that he may well turn out to be a very good Test batsman.

Flintoff hasn't score many runs in a long time, as long as he's kept away from the top six though then he adds value with the bat.

Broad & Swann ensure that we have one of the deeper batting line-ups in Test cricket.

Not the best batting line-up in the world, but definitely not poor.

 

[zaremba]

Eng are a very poor batting lineup - no-one gets bowled out for 50 unless that is the case

Cheap shot, and wide of the mark.

You could equally say "England are a very strong batting lineup - no batting line-up would average 52.1 runs per wicket since the start of the year (including said 51 all out) unless that's the case."

For the record, here are England's Test scores in addition to the infamous 51:

600/6d, 569/6d, 566/9d, 546/6d, 377, 318, 279/2d, 237/6d, 221/8d, 32/0, 7/0

To me, that suggests that the 51 was the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not suggesting we won't get murdered by the Australians (although their inability to bowl my county side's fringe players out doesn't exactly send shivers of panic down my spine) but I just think that basing your critique of a batting line-up on the basis of one innings is a little unreliable.

 

[Burgey]

Cheap shot, and wide of the mark.

You could equally say "England are a very strong batting lineup - no batting line-up would average 52.1 runs per wicket since the start of the year (including said 51 all out) unless that's the case."

For the record, here are England's Test scores in addition to the infamous 51:

600/6d, 569/6d, 566/9d, 546/6d, 377, 318, 279/2d, 237/6d, 221/8d, 32/0, 7/0

To me, that suggests that the 51 was the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not suggesting we won't get murdered by the Australians (although their inability to bowl my county side's fringe players out doesn't exactly send shivers of panic down my spine) but I just think that basing your critique of a batting line-up on the basis of one innings is a little unreliable.

Some good points there mate, but we should also keep in mind precious few, if any, of the bowlers Australia put out in the warm up have bowled more than 4 overs in a match for several months.

Having said that I'd still have expected them to knock that line up over.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah not to mention that I dont think giving Hauritz and North 37 overs between them in the final inning is something that they would do in a regular test match.

Personally, if I was Australian selector, I would go for Siddle, Lee, Clark and Johnson as my bowlers.

 

[zaremba]

Personally, if I was Australian selector, I would go for Siddle, Lee, Clark and Johnson as my bowlers.

Likewise. Hauritz got outbowled by Ollie Rayner and Will Beer, neither of whom can currently find a regular spot in the Sussex first team ffs.

The 4 quicks you've mentioned are a pretty potent pace attack and if twirly stuff is required then it can just as well come from Clarke, North and Katich as Hauritz.

 

[tooextracool]

Likewise. Hauritz got outbowled by Ollie Rayner and Will Beer, neither of whom can currently find a regular spot in the Sussex first team ffs.

Wasn't Rayner one of the players who has been talked up by coaches and management alike? Got a look at him on the highlight videos and he looks extremely tall for a spin bowler, not sure if thats a good thing for a spinner though tbh.

 

[zaremba]

we should also keep in mind precious few, if any, of the bowlers Australia put out in the warm up have bowled more than 4 overs in a match for several months.

Yeah you're right and I for one wouldn't be so foolish to write off the Aussie attack on the basis of a warm-up game. I think that pace attack is good enough to cause us, potentially, all sorts of problems. IMHO the entire series depends on how the England top order deal with them, and with the new ball in particular.

 

[zaremba]

Wasn't Rayner one of the players who has been talked up by coaches and management alike? Got a look at him on the highlight videos and he looks extremely tall for a spin bowler, not sure if thats a good thing for a spinner though tbh.

Yes he's talented. He gets turn and does take wickets. He can also bat. But I think he's still a bit raw and he has some developing yet to do.

For my money, height is almost always an asset for a bowler of any description.

Apropos of nothing, Rayner also bears a striking resemblance to Sean Bean.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's so ridiculously overused. They had one collapse in about a year (on a very difficult pitch against some ****ign inspired bowling from Taylor and Benn) and noone has shut up about it since despite their batsmen scoring as many runs as they liked in every game since.

It's not like Australia weren't reduced to 20/5 (eventually all out for 167) against the exact same attack a few months earlier. Having had their arse saved by someone who won't even be anywhere near the side this summer.

What do you expect? It's obviously going to be brought up...it happened and it's funny.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah not to mention that I dont think giving Hauritz and North 37 overs between them in the final inning is something that they would do in a regular test match.

Personally, if I was Australian selector, I would go for Siddle, Lee, Clark and Johnson as my bowlers.

Yeah, it's looking more likely given Hauritz's efforts in the last game. Unless he does something remarkable (if he gets a game) in the next match then I'd say that'll be the lineup if they all do ok. North, Katich and Clarke will provide the spin options I'd say.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, it's looking more likely given Hauritz's efforts in the last game. Unless he does something remarkable (if he gets a game) in the next match then I'd say that'll be the lineup if they all do ok. North, Katich and Clarke will provide the spin options I'd say.

Yep agreed, Hauritz's effort solidifies Norths spot in the side, I reckon. He'd be pretty happy at the moment. All he'd need is a reasonable hit-out against the Lions and he's a shoe-in.

 

[Johnners]

Pretty much agree with most of what TEC has said. Although I do think Macca is a slightly better bowler than he suggests, there's absolutely no way he should be considered for the 4th bowling spot ahead of the likes of Lee/Clark.