*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[aussie]

Whilst I do think that Johnson is extremely overrated on these boards, I never said he hadnt improved, he clearly has. Just that the logic behind looking at 1 innings (with respect to Broad and Johnson) to come to a conclusion that someone hasnt improved is somewhat flawed.

Oh oh, i wanted to know if you had lost it there for a minute..

 

[zaremba]

An enjoyable mass debate here. I see where everyone's coming from but I think TEC has a good point. Yes of course it's a flat track but no-one, perhaps excepting Hilfenhaus and Flintoff, has been at all impressive in the limited amount of cricket we've seen so far.

I'm sure both attacks are better than they've shown so far, and one side or the other will put in an improved performance soon. Maybe it will be Ye Crims in the 2nd innings with a bit of a lead to bowl at, and their tails up.

Ultimately the obvious reason why Australia is in front is that its batsmen have not chucked their wickets away when well set. Which doesn't say much for the quality of bowling on either side.

 

[Uppercut]

And you actually think he bowled well? Sorry he looked innocuous throughout and got smacked around for more than 4 runs an over for most of the game. Honestly, people on this forum have some sort of blind love to anything he does. He was the worst Australian bowler on show this game and its not really like Siddle or Hauritz bowled like champions either. With the exception of Hilfenhaus and possibly Flintoff the bowling this game has been ordinary to poor throughout.

He didn't bowl consistently well, but what he did bowl was wicket-taking deliveries. And hence, he took wickets. Same with Siddle, and Hauritz bowled perfectly decently so it's not his fault if the batsmen want to take their chances and get out. It's very valuable bowling on pitches like this. England's failure to come up with that odd delivery that grabs them a wicket is why they're still in the field with the deficit building. Swann and Panesar, by contrast to Johnson and Siddle, have bowled perfectly decently but haven't managed to pull that wicket ball out of the bag.

 

[Woodster]

As far as North is concerned, you don't have to agree with me. My opinion is that his technique isn't very tight and whilst it is still very early for me to rule him completely as a player given that I have watched him only for 1 inning, I would definitely argue the point that 'he has a sound technique' that was suggested by another poster earlier.

I haven't seen any major technical flaws to suggest that North doesn't have the kind of technique to score rnus at this level. I actually thought he looked organised, he has a style of play and scores accordingly, unless I'm missing something (and that is quite possible).

 

[tooextracool]

Sorry, but I reckon that's cobblers of a high order.

Johnson has been bowling on a dead flat track and didn't get the ball to swing. What he showed is that he has more in his armoury if he can't bring the ball back into the right-hander/away from the southpaws. It wasn't accidental he surprised Strauss with a short one or got Bopara with a slower one. He thought out the batsmen. He got lucky with Broad, perhaps, but credit to him for 2/3 of his wickets.

Haurtiz being smacked is more of an issue for him than Johnson too; the offie is in primarily as a container (which is why I presume he was preferred to Krezja), but Johnson is the spearhead. If your spearhead knocks over two of the top three on a bad day he must be doing something right.

Personally, I think that people are looking too closely at the wickets column rather than the actual bowling with regards to Australia's first innings performance. Yes Hauritz took 3, but KP's was a ridiculous shot which I very much doubt will ever be repeated given that someone trying to sweep a ball that in all probability would have been called an off side wide had it been left alone doesn't exactly happen everyday. Similarly, Anderson's shot was a very low percentage shot that given his own ability with the bat could have been put down as being extremely unlikely for himself to pull off. And the other was Panesar who is a walking wicket. So regarding Hauritz, he got away with putting an average performance in, as he seems to frustratingly have done for most of his career but we all know that its not going to last for very long.

Regarding Johnson, yes credit where it is due, he bowled a well disguised slower ball and outfoxed Bopara. However, last time I checked slower balls don't take wickets consistently in test match cricket and while it worked for him yesterday, its not something that can be relied on to take wickets for the rest of the series. He bowled a good bouncer but again, that was one of a handful of good balls he bowled in the entire match and he was rather fortunate that they picked up wickets.

Personally, Im more worried about the kind of damage that Siddle and even Hilfenhaus can inflict upon us during this series than Johnson at the moment unless he gets that ball to swing.

 

[oitoitoi]

Just saw Clarke's wicket, it's got to feel pretty crap getting out like that when you're on 83.

 

[zaremba]

He didn't bowl consistently well, but what he did bowl was wicket-taking deliveries. And hence, he took wickets. Same with Siddle, and Hauritz bowled perfectly decently so it's not his fault if the batsmen want to take their chances and get out. It's very valuable bowling on pitches like this. England's failure to come up with that odd delivery that grabs them a wicket is why they're still in the field with the deficit building. Swann and Panesar, by contrast to Johnson and Siddle, have bowled perfectly decently but haven't managed to pull that wicket ball out of the bag.

But if you're talking about one or two wicket taking deliveries, well they have bowled them but the umpires didn't give them out. And Anderson beat Hughes and nearly dismissed him with the first ball of the innings but Hughes narrowly escaped. I'm not grumbling here, just pointing out that if your measure of bowling well is bowling a couple of dangerous balls, you're setting the bar so low that even England's bowling in this innings clears it.

 

[Uppercut]

Personally, I think that people are looking too closely at the wickets column rather than the actual bowling with regards to Australia's first innings performance. Yes Hauritz took 3, but KP's was a ridiculous shot which I very much doubt will ever be repeated given that someone trying to sweep a ball that in all probability would have been called an off side wide had it been left alone doesn't exactly happen everyday. Similarly, Anderson's shot was a very low percentage shot that given his own ability with the bat could have been put down as being extremely unlikely for himself to pull off. And the other was Panesar who is a walking wicket. So regarding Hauritz, he got away with putting an average performance in, as he seems to frustratingly have done for most of his career but we all know that its not going to last for very long.

England looked to get after Hauritz. When it works, you'll have absolutely no hesitation in using it against the man and saying that he bowled crap and got smashed. But when it doesn't, you'll just turn round and say that it was England's batting that got him wickets and refuse to give him any credit.

It's a widely used double-standard that plenty of spinners (eg. Paul Harris) suffer from.

 

[Uppercut]

But if you're talking about one or two wicket taking deliveries, well they have bowled them but the umpires didn't give them out. And Anderson beat Hughes and nearly dismissed him with the first ball of the innings but Hughes narrowly escaped. I'm not grumbling here, just pointing out that if your measure of bowling well is bowling a couple of dangerous balls, you're setting the bar so low that even England's bowling in this innings clears it.

England haven't bowled anywhere near as many dangerous deliveries as Australia did though. It's a numbers game.

 

[Woodster]

I'm not becoming complacent regarding Australia's attack, and I know we have all heard enough about 'not the same without Warne and McGrath' etc, but, if we were in this kind of position a few years back and then had to contend with the two aforementioned players while being in deficit after the first innings, I would hold much less hope of us managing to secure a draw. However, and it is with no disrespect to the current Aussie attack that I say this, but I still feel confident enough that should Australia leave us with a day to bat and survive, I believe we will manage it. Now that might be mislaid confidence, but I think we have the batsmen, and Australia not quite the bowlers, yet, to see the job through.

Generally when I make such statements, it does backfire, normally quite horribly!

 

[tooextracool]

He didn't bowl consistently well, but what he did bowl was wicket-taking deliveries. And hence, he took wickets. Same with Siddle, and Hauritz bowled perfectly decently so it's not his fault if the batsmen want to take their chances and get out. It's very valuable bowling on pitches like this. England's failure to come up with that odd delivery that grabs them a wicket is why they're still in the field with the deficit building. Swann and Panesar, by contrast to Johnson and Siddle, have bowled perfectly decently but haven't managed to pull that wicket ball out of the bag.

Johnson bowled one wicket taking delivery IMO, that to Strauss which was not an unplayable delivery even, merely a good one. A slower ball is categorically NOT a wicket-taking delivery, its something that the batsman failed to pick up but a wicket-taking delivery is something that would get someone out 9 out of 10 times and I very much doubt that was the case with the ball to Bopara. The ball to Broad as we all know was down the leg side and really should have gone for 4 runs.

Test cricket has rarely been about which team can produce more wicket taking deliveries in an innings in between all the codswallop. Its about how many balls you put in the right areas. I dont think either team did that consistently enough, perhaps you could argue that Australia marginally outbowled England but I think the real difference between the 2 teams (as we suspected at the start of the series) was that Australia outbatted England.

 

[Woodster]

Just saw Clarke's wicket, it's got to feel pretty crap getting out like that when you're on 83.

Seemed a strange shot, he got himself very cramped to play the pull, his arms not extended anywhere near enough, and he basically executed it badly. Fair play to Broad for sticking the short in the right area.

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson bowled one wicket taking delivery IMO, that to Strauss which was not an unplayable delivery even, merely a good one. A slower ball is categorically NOT a wicket-taking delivery, its something that the batsman failed to pick up but a wicket-taking delivery is something that would get someone out 9 out of 10 times and I very much doubt that was the case with the ball to Bopara. The ball to Broad as we all know was down the leg side and really should have gone for 4 runs.

Test cricket has rarely been about which team can produce more wicket taking deliveries in an innings in between all the codswallop. Its about how many balls you put in the right areas. I dont think either team did that consistently enough, perhaps you could argue that Australia marginally outbowled England but I think the real difference between the 2 teams (as we suspected at the start of the series) was that Australia outbatted England.

Normally I would agree, but on pitches like this, I think it is. Good areas aren't good areas with no movement, no pace and no bounce. Without McGrath-esque accuracy, you need that little bit extra, the really good ball that just forces a wicket. Hitting decent areas won't really cut it against batsmen of this standard I'm afraid.

 

[Woodster]

A slower ball is categorically NOT a wicket-taking delivery, its something that the batsman failed to pick up but a wicket-taking delivery is something that would get someone out 9 out of 10 times and I very much doubt that was the case with the ball to Bopara.

Think that is taking that particular delivery in isolation. There was a thought process behind that set-up, and while you may argue it wasn't a wicket-taking delivery (even though it did take a wicket), Johnson had recognised Bopara's willingness to go at the ball, so he took pace off it and directed it wide enough to encourage Bopara to play a forceful drive (like he had earlier and got away with it). This wicket was more about the thought process and deception and should be praised.

 

[aussie]

England looked to get after Hauritz. When it works, you'll have absolutely no hesitation in using it against the man and saying that he bowled crap and got smashed. But when it doesn't, you'll just turn round and say that it was England's batting that got him wickets and refuse to give him any credit.

But ENG didn't look to get after Haurtiz at any stage on the first day. After the first session when ENG where 97/3, KP & Collingwood basically milked him around he never looked threatening. The second morning he got cheap tail-end wicket.

Thats all it was in this test & the trend of his woeful test career.

It's a widely used double-standard that plenty of spinners (eg. Paul Harris) suffer from.

Not doube standard at all. Bowlers like Harris & Haurtiz can't work in a 4-man attack.

Harris has be luckly to be part of a solid 5-man attack over the past 2 years now, it will be interesting to see how he goes, now that Ntini & Morkel are looking iffy & Kallis's days as a bowler are surely numbered.

Top_Cat is right i should probably ease off this Haurtiz debate, im getting a headache wit this thing...

 

[zaremba]

I'm not becoming complacent regarding Australia's attack, and I know we have all heard enough about 'not the same without Warne and McGrath' etc, but, if we were in this kind of position a few years back and then had to contend with the two aforementioned players while being in deficit after the first innings, I would hold much less hope of us managing to secure a draw. However, and it is with no disrespect to the current Aussie attack that I say this, but I still feel confident enough that should Australia leave us with a day to bat and survive, I believe we will manage it. Now that might be mislaid confidence, but I think we have the batsmen, and Australia not quite the bowlers, yet, to see the job through.

Generally when I make such statements, it does backfire, normally quite horribly!

Yeah it's funny also how match situation can lift the bowling attack and put the batsmen under pressure. If the criminals get a lead of say 150 runs then we are in a real scrap to save the game. It's then squeaky-bum time and seeing us skittled relatively cheaply would not be a surprise, even though our batting line-up really ought to be good enough to fend off this particular Aussie attack on this particular pitch.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah it's funny also how match situation can lift the bowling attack and put the batsmen under pressure. If the criminals get a lead of say 150 runs then we are in a real scrap to save the game. It's then squeaky-bum time and seeing us skittled relatively cheaply would not be a surprise, even though our batting line-up really ought to be good enough to fend off this particular Aussie attack on this particular pitch.

Absolutely, the Aussie bowling attack, should they gain a lead in the region of 150, will be more like Lillee and Thompson than Lillee and Thompson were! While England collapses are hardly a thing of the past (see Caribbean) I would still expect us to ride the Aussie enthusiasm. Variable bounce may make things really difficult, but there are no major signs that this is likely to be the case.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Personally, I think that people are looking too closely at the wickets column rather than the actual bowling with regards to Australia's first innings performance. Yes Hauritz took 3, but KP's was a ridiculous shot which I very much doubt will ever be repeated given that someone trying to sweep a ball that in all probability would have been called an off side wide had it been left alone doesn't exactly happen everyday. Similarly, Anderson's shot was a very low percentage shot that given his own ability with the bat could have been put down as being extremely unlikely for himself to pull off. And the other was Panesar who is a walking wicket. So regarding Hauritz, he got away with putting an average performance in, as he seems to frustratingly have done for most of his career but we all know that its not going to last for very long.

Regarding Johnson, yes credit where it is due, he bowled a well disguised slower ball and outfoxed Bopara. However, last time I checked slower balls don't take wickets consistently in test match cricket and while it worked for him yesterday, its not something that can be relied on to take wickets for the rest of the series. He bowled a good bouncer but again, that was one of a handful of good balls he bowled in the entire match and he was rather fortunate that they picked up wickets.

Personally, Im more worried about the kind of damage that Siddle and even Hilfenhaus can inflict upon us during this series than Johnson at the moment unless he gets that ball to swing.

One of the comms called it with Bopara, it might've been Gower: for whatvever reason he was playing a shot a ball, even his defensive prods were making it out to the covers. It might've been the working over Siddle had given him before. In any rate he'd seemingly determined to hit his way out of trouble, Johnson probably saw this and slipped in a slower ball for him to drive which Ravi duly spooned to Hughes. Slower balls might not be a major weapon in tests, but Bopara wasn't playing a test innings.

I'm with you on Hauritz, however. Yesterday morning pasag (in this very thread) called him about the worst bowler to player test cricket:

Close to the worst Test bowler in the world, you'd have to say. There's no logical reason to not play Clark or McDonald ahead of him. Never should have been brought on tour, let alone played in a Test here.

but suddenly two tailend wickets later and everyone wants to bear his children.

 

[zaremba]

England haven't bowled anywhere near as many dangerous deliveries as Australia did though. It's a numbers game.

Well maybe; but my point is that you can't read too much into the mere fact that Johnson bowled a couple of potentially wicket-taking balls. Every bowler in the game has done that. And that aside, Johnson wasn't particularly good. I'm not writing him off on the strength of one innings, mind you. I have memories of McGrath taking a game to get into his stride in 1997.

 

[tooextracool]

I haven't seen any major technical flaws to suggest that North doesn't have the kind of technique to score rnus at this level. I actually thought he looked organised, he has a style of play and scores accordingly, unless I'm missing something (and that is quite possible).

Whilst I do think its too early to write him off, his technique is Yuvraj-esque. When driving, he drives airily away from his body although he does seem to be a better leaver of the ball than Yuvraj.