*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Oscillatingmind]

Daresay it would've been different had he taken something like 8/120 from those 38 overs instead.

Perhaps, I think however the factor which lost that test wasn't Johnson's bowling, it was clearly a bad first innings. It basically left no chance of a win, I mean the pitch wasn't playing terrible and they managed a 4th innings total of 400, so you'd have to conclude Johnson wasn't the difference it was the lackluster 1st innings batting, Just like in the last test (that and the lack of spinner).

Those two batting failures lost the ashes for Australia.

Its funny however that in Johnson's terrible tour he managed more wickets then any of the Englishmen and a SR only bettered by Onions.

 

[aussie]

And in what must be the least surprising news of all time (especially since no-one really believed the denials at the time), Midge Johnson admits his trailer Mum just might have affected his cricket in England;

Mitchell Johnson reveals Ashes demons | Cricket News | Australia v West Indies 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com

Ha indeed. Although i still reckon his initial struggles to control the duke ball was the bigger issue.

 

[Manee]

Ha indeed. Although i still reckon his initial struggles to control the duke ball was the bigger issue.

I've heard this a lot but I'm unsure that this is the cause. I've played with loads of balls before and I have never had one particular type that made me lose my radar, to the extent that Johnson did. I've had balls that made me bowl the odd short ball or wide, but Johnson is a professional and he was seriously all over the place and that cannot solely be down to the ball, imo - there must have been a mental aspect.

The fact that Johnson has the slingy action and unique release style means that the ball remains a possibility though, and one I will not rule out but I remain sceptical.

 

[Uppercut]

No argument here but with the ban on picking Victorian batsmen, who else?

Haha, I don't know the ins and outs of Australian cricket as well as you do in order to say. I just always feel like if someone fails for Australia, there'll be plenty of other players ready to take their place. At the moment, I'd say Brad Hodge, but if you're looking three years down the line then I've no idea. Jaques at 3 maybe?

I just consider it reasonably safe to assume that you'll pull a quality batsman from somewhere, the country always seems to be overflowing with them- Marcus North being a case in point. Why take a chance on a converted all-rounder with huge pads and an inability to convert starts that's already largely failed in tests whenever he's played?

 

[Jarquis]

From what I know Hodge won't be picked any time soon after telling the selectors to pretty much **** themselves.

 

[Uppercut]

I know, but if you're happy to ignore someone that talented for personality reasons you've got to have someone pretty damn good ready to take his place.

 

[four_or_six]

Why take a chance on a converted all-rounder with huge pads and an inability to convert starts that's already largely failed in tests whenever he's played?

Watto averages 34 with 4 50's in 8 matches batting in the top 6. I don't think that's that mad.

/stats manipulation to try to make a point.

 

[Jarquis]

I know, but if you're happy to ignore someone that talented for personality reasons you've got to have someone pretty damn good ready to take his place.

England managed it with Trott Well that was supposedly part of the reasoning.

 

[Uppercut]

Watto averages 34 with 4 50's in 8 matches batting in the top 6. I don't think that's that mad.

/stats manipulation to try to make a point.

Haha, it's all relative though. Phil Jaques averages 47 with six fifties and three centuries in 11 matches batting in the top 6. Phil Hughes averages 52 with two centuries and a fifty in 5 matches batting in the top 6. Would you play Watto as a specialist batsman over either of them? Okay, they're openers, but that's where Watto's scored his runs too. What about Brad Hodge? Don't even get me started on him

 

[four_or_six]

Haha, it's all relative though. Phil Jaques averages 47 with six fifties and three centuries in 11 matches batting in the top 6. Phil Hughes averages 52 with two centuries and a fifty in 5 matches batting in the top 6. Would you play Watto as a specialist batsman over either of them? Okay, they're openers, but that's where Watto's scored his runs too. What about Brad Hodge? Don't even get me started on him

I wouldn't play Phil Jaques in this match. He's had career threatening back surgery (multiple surgeries iirc) with what, one or two aborted comebacks already. Don't have the slightest problem in the long run with Jaques coming back in, in fact I think it would be a very good decision.

As for Philip Hughes, they made their decision to drop him, and whether that was right or wrong it's done now. It would have been a much more difficult decision if he'd played well this season... obviously I haven't seen him but comments coming from Ponting today weren't overly complimentary.

Therefore, Watto gets the gig, gets three tests against WI to prove himself. Not a great team, but he's under plenty pressure to perform so the performance will count imo. If he scores runs, he keeps his place. If he doesn't, I expect one of Jaques or Hughes will have done enough by then to take it.

 

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't play Phil Jaques in this match. He's had career threatening back surgery (multiple surgeries iirc) with what, one or two aborted comebacks already. Don't have the slightest problem in the long run with Jaques coming back in, in fact I think it would be a very good decision.

As for Philip Hughes, they made their decision to drop him, and whether that was right or wrong it's done now. It would have been a much more difficult decision if he'd played well this season... obviously I haven't seen him but comments coming from Ponting today weren't overly complimentary.

Therefore, Watto gets the gig, gets three tests against WI to prove himself. Not a great team, but he's under plenty pressure to perform so the performance will count imo. If he scores runs, he keeps his place. If he doesn't, I expect one of Jaques or Hughes will have done enough by then to take it.

I'm not saying he should be dropped now, we're talking about a few years down the line with a view to Ponting's retirement and the like- if he gives up bowling. Right now, he's definitely in the side.

 

[four_or_six]

I'm not saying he should be dropped now, we're talking about a few years down the line with a view to Ponting's retirement and the like- if he gives up bowling. Right now, he's definitely in the side.

Ah, okay, yeah... well, I hope he's still in the side then. Jaques is a bit normal and boring, and however good Hughes is he looks like a total hack to me and I find him yuck to watch. Watto's shots are just yum.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haha, I don't know the ins and outs of Australian cricket as well as you do in order to say. I just always feel like if someone fails for Australia, there'll be plenty of other players ready to take their place. At the moment, I'd say Brad Hodge, but if you're looking three years down the line then I've no idea. Jaques at 3 maybe?

I just consider it reasonably safe to assume that you'll pull a quality batsman from somewhere, the country always seems to be overflowing with them- Marcus North being a case in point. Why take a chance on a converted all-rounder with huge pads and an inability to convert starts that's already largely failed in tests whenever he's played?

Here's the problem, though; the top 5 or so run-scorers in SS cricket for the past few years have all been the same blokes and none of them are the new generation popping up (talking middle-order here, Hughes the obvious exception). North, for example, has been in the Aussie set-up, playing Aus A, etc. for almost 10 years. There are a bunch of guys who are young and should be pressing for higher teams but their Shield performances are somewhat mediocre relative to their apparent potential (Pomersbach, Marsh, Bailey, Cosgrove).

Eventually, like the selectors did with Hughes and are doing with Watson, they'll have to take a punt, more on potential and back the team because none of the above are putting any pressure on the selectors to change it. This is a marked difference to the 90's when outside of the Test regulars, you had Langer, Elliott, Martyn, Law, Lehmann, Blewett, Cox, Katich, Hayden, Ponting, etc. all posting regular 1000-run seasons.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ah, okay, yeah... well, I hope he's still in the side then. Jaques is a bit normal and boring, and however good Hughes is he looks like a total hack to me and I find him yuck to watch. Watto's buns are just yum.

AWTA.

 

[Uppercut]

Here's the problem, though; the top 5 or so run-scorers in SS cricket for the past few years have all been the same blokes and none of them are the new generation popping up (talking middle-order here, Hughes the obvious exception). North, for example, has been in the Aussie set-up, playing Aus A, etc. for almost 10 years. There are a bunch of guys who are young and should be pressing for higher teams but their Shield performances are somewhat mediocre relative to their apparent potential (Pomersbach, Marsh, Bailey, Cosgrove).

Eventually, like the selectors did with Hughes and are doing with Watson, they'll have to take a punt, more on potential and back the team because none of the above are putting any pressure on the selectors to change it. This is a marked difference to the 90's when outside of the Test regulars, you had Langer, Elliott, Martyn, Law, Lehmann, Blewett, Cox, Katich, Hayden, Ponting, etc. all posting regular 1000-run seasons.

I don't think taking a punt is necessary. I'd carry on picking the Brad Hodges who are churning out runs in domestic cricket for now. By the time the veterans retire the situation will have changed drastically, so there's no point picking on potential because you're concerned that there'll still be no one scoring runs then. There's a good chance that either another Phil Hughes will appear or the Pomersbachs and Cosgroves will have started to realise their talent.

 

[aussie]

I've heard this a lot but I'm unsure that this is the cause. I've played with loads of balls before and I have never had one particular type that made me lose my radar, to the extent that Johnson did. I've had balls that made me bowl the odd short ball or wide, but Johnson is a professional and he was seriously all over the place and that cannot solely be down to the ball, imo - there must have been a mental aspect.

The fact that Johnson has the slingy action and unique release style means that the ball remains a possibility though, and one I will not rule out but I remain sceptical.

From my experience the Duke ball is smaller in hand & the seam is less prominent than the Kookubura (spell check).

Johnson never bowled with the red ball before in ENG before the Ashes. In SA when he found that swing, he lowered his action when he saw the movement he was getting. So fast forward to ENG with a different ball & the not swinging he struggled. Its only when he starting bowling back in his natural hit the deck style from the 2nd innings of 3rd test - that he began to look himself again.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think taking a punt is necessary. I'd carry on picking the Brad Hodges who are churning out runs in domestic cricket for now. By the time the veterans retire the situation will have changed drastically, so there's no point picking on potential because you're concerned that there'll still be no one scoring runs then. There's a good chance that either another Phil Hughes will appear or the Pomersbachs and Cosgroves will have started to realise their talent.

Like I said, unless the ban is lifted, the selectors will have to back Watto and Hughes/Jaques.

 

[Top_Cat]

From my experience the Duke ball is smaller in hand & the seam is less prominent than the Kookubura (spell check).

Johnson never bowled with the red ball before in ENG before the Ashes. In SA when he found that swing, he lowered his action when he saw the movement he was getting. So fast forward to ENG with a different ball & the not swinging he struggled. Its only when he starting bowling back in his natural hit the deck style from the 2nd innings of 3rd test - that he began to look himself again.

Confounded by the controversy with his classy Mum dying down by then. With Manee on this one, it's still a red 156g ball with a seam.

 

[aussie]

Confounded by the controversy with his classy Mum dying down by then.

A combination of that & problems adjusting to the duke ball.

With Manee on this one, it's still a red 156g ball with a seam.

There clearlyy is a difference between the duke & kookubura, that if a bowler never used it before he could struggle. The same way how tranditional an English swing bowler would struggle outside ENG to get the same swing with the Kookubura the same thing occured with Johnno intially in ENG.

 

[Top_Cat]

A combination of that & problems adjusting to the duke ball.



There clearlyy is a difference between the duke & kookubura, that if a bowler never used it before he could struggle. The same way how tranditional an English swing bowler would struggle outside ENG to get the same swing with the Kookubura the same thing occured with Johnno intially in ENG.

Don't dispute that but there's a huge difference between struggling with getting the amount of swing you're used to and barely landing the nurry on the cut potion.