*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[Pothas]

Was at Lords for the first session in 2005 and I think it is unlikely to beat that but still obviously cannot wait.

 

[sledger]

Was at Lords for the first session in 2005 and I think it is unlikely to beat that but still obviously cannot wait.

That was the best bit of live sport ever, I don't think I'll ever attend another sporting spectacle that will top that. To see a truly world class performer at his absolute best was something incredible.

 

[Top_Cat]

That was the best bit of live sport ever, I don't think I'll ever attend another sporting spectacle that will top that. To see a truly world class performer at his absolute best was something incredible.

The whole day was unbelieveable. I've never seen a day of cricket quite like it.

 

[sledger]

The whole day was unbelieveable. I've never seen a day of cricket quite like it.

Yeah completely agree, everything about that day was unique, the atmosphere surrounding the entire days play was something that I can't imagine I will ever experience again, the anticipation for the start of the series was so high, and it well and truly lived up to expectations. I remember being thrilled that England had bowled out Australia so cheaply, but was absolutely blown away by McGrath destroying England, so much so that I didn't even care, it was just that good.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah it was one of those occasions that you could not help but enjoy despite what is happening to your side. Also remember the massive group of Aussies sitting just across from us loved the changing dynamic between them and the rest of the crowd as the day developed. Maybe the best day of Sport I have ever seen, only rivalled by seeing the West Indies bowled out for 54.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not entirely sure about this one, yes it makes sense and their is some sense to it but surley it works both ways? It is going to be easier for the third and fourth bowlers to keep the runs down and contribute to the sucess of the team if the premier bowlers are performing and taking wickets. Also just because a bowler has done a good supporting job it does not mean they should be automatically picked if a better option has returned or has become availble

Two things;

1) You're right that having two spearheads bowling well would make it easier in some ways for the supports. Similarly, though, the supports would have to contend with batsmen looking to go after them as the weak link in the attack. Can result in some cheap wickets or runs against you. It's why the role of support is tougher than people think and so crucial. If you keep it tight, the pressure on the batting side is immense. If you get spanked, you might undo the good work by the openers. It requires an ability to change gears really quickly. In some ways, the role of an opening bowler is easier.

2) Agreed, no-one should be an automatic pick. But it's asks the question about who is a better option; a bowler who is of lesser ability but bowls well in the team context or a better bowler who doesn't? All things being equal, I'd pick the former every time. The WI quicks weren't a great unit because they were all guns (there were plenty of other guns around). They were great because they always had the team goal in mind. For all his weapons, Marshall was also excellent at throttling back when the situation demanded it. Same with the rest of them. That's what made them so great, in my book. Crucial skill to be able to bowl with the team goal in mind.

 

[superkingdave]

Think it was more a case of giving Lee a chance to prove form/fitness before the main event rather than just "accomodating" him and Clark. &, tbf, if he's going to pick up an injury it's better now than during the test itself.

Not gutted as a one-eyed pommie to see Lee out because he looked the best bowler on either side by the proverbial country mile.

& the bowling battery in SA was pretty much Johnson & Siddle, wasn't it? Surely you'd want to bring in better (in my estimation) bowlers when you could?

Sure he had a good spell in the warmup...but best bowler on either side by a country mile? It was only 5 minutes before that spell that a lot of people didn't have him in their side. And its not as if any other bowlers didn't have good warmups. Its a blow for Australia sure, but even though Lee showed some form, I was still more worried about Johnson, Siddle & Clark than Lee.

 

[aussie]

Because then you'd be relying on Mitchell Johnson having another series so ****ing good it defied belief and the rest of the attack gliding along peacefully on his shoulders.

I think you will find many still have a rose tinted view on this matter.

 

[aussie]

Urm, it looked like he had forgotten how to bowl in the last year and that's why his spot wasnt guaranteed


In short, he HAD to perform in the warmup games

What he didnt have to do was bust a gut once he'd proven his fitness and form

Not really. Lee was under-prepared goin into IND series, which clearly affected his abilty to be AUS reverse swing weapon in that series. We now know he got injured during that series, which affected him vs NZ & againts SA.

Lee came back in recently & the MAIN sign that should have worried people was his pace. He was bowling @ 150 from the first ball back in UAE & in the IPL, that should have been very positive news.

No doubt he had to get some FC cricket going into the Ashes. But too much outside pressure was being put on him. The fact that people where still worried about him bowling in ENG was the craziest notion going around. Come on clearly Lee is MUCH improved bowler than 2001 & 2005.

Stuart Clark hasn't all this pressure put on him recently & he is in a similar position to Lee. The fact that Lee himself said the England Lions game was a bowl off for him was bad. Team management need to blank out media pressure & back their players, i honestly much rather Lee getting injured during a test with such intensity, than in warm-up.

 

[social]

Not really. Lee was under-prepared goin into IND series, which clearly affected his abilty to be AUS reverse swing weapon in that series. We now know he got injured during that series, which affected him vs NZ & againts SA.

Lee came back in recently & the MAIN sign that should have worried people was his pace. He was bowling @ 150 from the first ball back in UAE & in the IPL, that should have been very positive news.

No doubt he had to get some FC cricket going into the Ashes. But too much outside pressure was being put on him. The fact that people where still worried about him bowling in ENG was the craziest notion going around. Come on clearly Lee is MUCH improved bowler than 2001 & 2005.

Stuart Clark hasn't all this pressure put on him recently & he is in a similar position to Lee. The fact that Lee himself said the England Lions game was a bowl off for him was bad. Team management need to blank out media pressure & back their players, i honestly much rather Lee getting injured during a test with such intensity, than in warm-up.

Just how does being sick affect one's ability to swing a ball?

Lee simply bowled slowish (by his standards), straight crap in India which is why people questioned his place in the team

Face it, he's not a McGrath or a Warne whose records demand selection

 

[pup11]

He'd be handy, sure. But he didn't play in either of the warm-ups so a bit of a stretch to pick him for Cardiff, for mine.

Personally, the selectors should have given him a go in one of the warm-ups to give him game time as an alternative to Hauritz if the conditions suited.

Yeah, agree with you on this, McDonald not playing in a single practice game is a bit of a blooper, he is in the side as a back-up for Watto, and since Watto was injured he should have atleast been tested in the practice games, to see where he stands.

As things are atm, he or Hilfy could have been an alternative options to Hauritz for the first test, but both are short on game-time, which should pretty much rule them out of the contest.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sure he had a good spell in the warmup...but best bowler on either side by a country mile? It was only 5 minutes before that spell that a lot of people didn't have him in their side. And its not as if any other bowlers didn't have good warmups. Its a blow for Australia sure, but even though Lee showed some form, I was still more worried about Johnson, Siddle & Clark than Lee.

I didn't mean he's the best bowler overall, rather in the Loins game. & I can't agree that it was only a five minute spell, either. Before he took his first scalp he'd been quick and was getting some prodigious swing. He'd produced some quality inswinging yorkers that Denly did very well to keep out. Made this point to Andre in the tour match thread just before Lee gave me a rare moment of vindication. Bowled fairly tight lines too, certainly by comparison to Johnson.

On balance I'd still say Lee>>>anyone likely to replace him from the current squad, so it's score one for us IMHO.

 

[Uppercut]

Two things;

1) You're right that having two spearheads bowling well would make it easier in some ways for the supports. Similarly, though, the supports would have to contend with batsmen looking to go after them as the weak link in the attack. Can result in some cheap wickets or runs against you. It's why the role of support is tougher than people think and so crucial. If you keep it tight, the pressure on the batting side is immense. If you get spanked, you might undo the good work by the openers. It requires an ability to change gears really quickly. In some ways, the role of an opening bowler is easier.

2) Agreed, no-one should be an automatic pick. But it's asks the question about who is a better option; a bowler who is of lesser ability but bowls well in the team context or a better bowler who doesn't? All things being equal, I'd pick the former every time. The WI quicks weren't a great unit because they were all guns (there were plenty of other guns around). They were great because they always had the team goal in mind. For all his weapons, Marshall was also excellent at throttling back when the situation demanded it. Same with the rest of them. That's what made them so great, in my book. Crucial skill to be able to bowl with the team goal in mind.

I think you and howardj making a good point, but a very general one that wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that the Aussie attack should be kept the same as it was in SA. There's no doubt that the attack in SA was dependent on Mitchell Johnson doing the bulk of the wicket taking, that became obvious in the dead rubber test when Johnson didn't perform and SA racked up 640 and won by an innings. Containing bowlers like McDonald are useful to stop the game from getting away from you while your strike bowlers are resting, but if your strike bowlers aren't taking wickets they're useless. The value to me of having Lee, Clark, Johnson and Siddle all playing is that if one is having a bad day the others can cover for him and take a few wickets. When you have Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and McDonald, if Johnson or Siddle aren't effective the others aren't going to get enough wickets.

 

[pup11]

I think you and howardj making a good point, but a very general one that wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that the Aussie attack should be kept the same as it was in SA. There's no doubt that the attack in SA was dependent on Mitchell Johnson doing the bulk of the wicket taking, that became obvious in the dead rubber test when Johnson didn't perform and SA racked up 640 and won by an innings. Containing bowlers like McDonald are useful to stop the game from getting away from you while your strike bowlers are resting, but if your strike bowlers aren't taking wickets they're useless. The value to me of having Lee, Clark, Johnson and Siddle all playing is that if one is having a bad day the others can cover for him and take a few wickets. When you have Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and McDonald, if Johnson or Siddle aren't effective the others aren't going to get enough wickets.

I think nobody is saying that McDonald should be a part of a four-man pace attack, he can only be a useful fifth bowling option, and nothing more than that.

With Lee now out of the first two games, the battle for the final bowling slot should now be between Hauritz and Hilfenhaus, and their selection should depend on the conditions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think nobody is saying that McDonald should be a part of a four-man pace attack, he can only be a useful fifth bowling option, and nothing more than that.

With Lee now out of the first two games, the battle for the final bowling slot should now be between Hauritz and Hilfenhaus, and their selection should depend on the conditions.

Not without precedent that he has.

 

[four_or_six]

Well, Bell is playing for Warwickshire, so thankfully we're going in with the five bowlers.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Or say yes, and then say

Strauss (c)
Cook
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Broad
Mahmood
Anderson
Panesar

Best post of the thread. Email this to the ECB!

 

[Matt79]

Lol Mahmood and Paneser.

Edit: lol Broad.

 

[pup11]

Not without precedent that he has.

Something that shouldn't be repeated ever again...

 

[Matt79]

Was disgraceful how we won that series.