*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

PEWS overrated...like Hauritz.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS overrated...like Hauritz.

You have been dire in match threads of late Campsy.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Too much KFC, IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You have been dire in match threads of late Campsy.

Too much KFC, IMO.

Reported.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The fact is that Australia have a 4 man attack in which three of the bowlers are currently performing very well. Johnson, Bollinger and Hauritz are all taking a lot of wickets at a very good average at the moment and because of that Siddle is the odd man out.

Even in the WIndies teams of yesteryear there was almost always one weaker bowler. Noone remembers them well because they simply performed their role and applied pressure at the other end while the other bowlers took the wickets. At the moment Siddle is the pressure bowler. He does a lot of things right, but not right enough to be taking wickets and yet he is the third best fit quick in the country at the moment. Even given a full roster of players available only two would replace him - Lee and Hilfenhaus.

The other thing that is in Siddle's favour at the moment is that it is not the bowling attack that is Australia's weakness, but its batting. Since the third Ashes test the Australian bowling has worked very well and worked very well together. Siddle has been a big part of that, even without taking wickets. He's been frustrating at times as it always looks as though he should be taking more wickets than he does, but much like Harmison in the 05 ashes, Siddle's bowling means more to the team than the wickets that it produces.

Having said all of that, should either Lee or Hilfenhaus get fit, I believe that it is Siddle that should make way for one of those two. Nevertheless, in any 4 man attack there will always be one weaker bowler and with Dougeh and Johnson firing at the moment, that man is Siddle. There's a lot to like about him, but we have to be realistic about his role and ability at the moment.

Harsh on Watson, IMHO. Batting obviously his stronger suit, but his bowling's better than fill-in.

 

[godofcricket]

Awful performance from pakistan, after almost dominating most sessions, they gifted the game to australia when it mattered most. Theres only one hope for our cricket team, I want this guy as our next coach:

Ideal Coach for Pakistani team

 

[Manee]

Talha got late in to cricket and I still think he is at the stage where he is understanding his bowling. Watch him bowl once when he is in full flow its an awesome site I assure you but until or unless it happens consistently I agree he should be kept away.

Would you mind providing some detail as to how he gets most of his wickets? Not so much the method of dismissal but, e.g. speared in LBW, edged behind from the one that straightens, etc...

 

[aussie]

HA, big post shotta. I dig your flow here, but still some area's i cant agree with totally.

Since he became Australia's #1 spinner only Johnson and Bollinger have comprehensively outbowled him and both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are very debatable. We've seen a whole host of other seamers play, either as a fourth or third quick in McKay, Clark, McDonald and Watson. The fact that he's outbowled them all has to mean something.

I cant see how he has outbowled Hilfenhaus. He may be bowling better than Siddle right now, but thats because Sidvicious is not 100%. Siddle at peak throughout 09 (although he has up & down Ashes was better than Hauritz) & along with Johnson was the reason AUS beat SA in SA & the SCG test.

Hauritz bowling better than a croocked Stuart Clark & non-test quality/so called all-rounder in McDonald doesn't say much either.

Can't see how he has been better than Watson either especially this home season, although it is debatable to a level. Watson adding his reverse swing i'd say would make him a bit more effective than Hauritz throughout a test.

That's before you even factor in the balance of the attack, the fact that Watson's there as the fourth seamer anyway,

This is the thing. Yea Watson is working well as bowler this summer as one of 4-seamers. But god forbid he gets injured before the NZ tour, surely then Hauritz can't be trusted as part of 4-man attack (3 quicks + him)?. (Although you can argue the Kiwis aren't the greatest either ATM & he COULD be risked). But generally if Watson was to get injured, then the option of playing 4-quicks becomes a must.

the fact that he's a key member of the ODI setup

Yea sure he is must pick in ODI team, no issue there. But i dont think we should be equate his importance to the ODI side as reason why he gets some sort of sympothy pass by Ponting & co to play in tests.

Haurtiz in modern day version of what Peter Taylor was for Allan Border in the ODI side in early 90s. Good ODI bowler, but not really test quality.

and the fact that Ponting's keen to play a spinner in all conditions to give him the requisite Test experience for when he's really needed.

This a selectorial fault more than anything IMO. Test cricket isn't a place to be learning on the job 9 (well although others nations with weak FC systems have tended to do that with their players, AUS certainly don't & shouldn't do it even in this post McWarne era), let him go back to NSW & bowl. Hey may never run through a domestic batting line-up in a season per se & be amongst the top wicket takers. But we know ATM along with Krejza he/they are the best options AUS have as probable spinners, so just call them up when its "needed" - not the other way around.

As I said, I don't really think it'll last, but given the selectors picked him in the first place they are hardly going to discard him now that he's performed admirably, and it'd be stupidly harsh to do so at the minute anyway.

Hauritz has about as much chance of being dropped any time soon as Michael Clarke does really. We have to face that fact.

Just because he has indeed not disgraced himself & done ok in test since Nov 08, that should make him indispensable at all.

Its the same thing between SA 05/06 to WI 07/08 when Symonds held down the # 6 spot based on solid performances with the bat & his use as all-rounder (although the selectors probably over-exaggerated his role as one). You always felt that when Watson was fit Symonds would be the man to go.

Same situation now with Hauritz. You feel picking the 4th seamer (plus Watson) makes the attack far more effective & when all are fit, thus Hauritz is the man that has to go.

As i have argued before, the attack will look just like SA in 90s:

- ENG 95: Donald/Schultz/Matthews/Pollock/McMillan

- ENG 94 Donald/De Villiers/McMillan/Matthews + Cronje haa (this attack played in many tests in the early 90 so i just gave this one test example)

PAK 97/98: Donald/De Villiers/Pollock/Kallis/Klusener

ENG 98 Donald/Pollock/Ntini/McMillan/Kallis

ENG 99 Donald/Pollock/hayward/Klusener/Kallis

I think there is more, but i'm not sure..

But if you go through all SA test series from throughout the 90s. You would see a very common trend that i am suggesting. They went into most test (especially at home) with an all seam attack. The spinner whether it was Symcox/Adams/Eksteen was picked when the condtions demanded or any sub-continent tour since you got play a spinner there. Thats what AUS should do with Hauritz or Krejza (presuming he gets better).

Of course as you said i face that fact the Haurtiz's place is unfortuantely as safe as Clarke ATM. But AUS AFAIC can clearly do much better with the balance of the bowling attack - by not making him such an imprtant part of the test line-up..

 

[aussie]

If thats one of his most notable achievements to date as an australian bowler, it is worrying.

The example wasn't to show an achievment, it was for me the moment i said "yea AUS have found a real hot little bowler here". Since before that test given i dont see AUS domestic cricket i had not seen Siddle bowl live & i didn't know what to expect from him going into that test.

 

[social]

Aussie, you really do need to get it through your head that everyone needs a spinner in virtually every match unless you are one of the few teams in history that could've called upon 4 top quality pacemen

Oz in 2009/10 are not in that position, ergo we need a spinner

Hauritz is performing as a spinner so do the math

 

[social]

Harsh on Watson, IMHO. Batting obviously his stronger suit, but his bowling's better than fill-in.

Nah, love Watto as a batsman but he's no more than a very useful part-timer IMO

 

[Matt79]

Nah, love Watto as a batsman but he's no more than a very useful part-timer IMO

He's been better than that with the ball this season. Whether that lasts is another question, but he's been comfortably better than Siddle with the ball in the past few matches.

 

[Manee]

Nah, love Watto as a batsman but he's no more than a very useful part-timer IMO

Disagree. He will not be able to get through massive amounts of overs in a day, it would not be practical to make him do so. However, his performances more than earn him a position as genuine support seamer rather than part timer.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Only Kallis tops him as a fifth bowling option in tests currently IMHO.

Swing the key, obv. When he doesn't move the ball he can look a bit up-and-down as he's basically a wicket to wicket bowler, but any bowler who can move the ball at 85mph is useful as a fourth seamer.

 

[NUFAN]

As i have argued before, the attack will look just like SA in 90s:

- ENG 95: Donald/Schultz/Matthews/Pollock/McMillan

- ENG 94 Donald/De Villiers/McMillan/Matthews + Cronje haa (this attack played in many tests in the early 90 so i just gave this one test example)

PAK 97/98: Donald/De Villiers/Pollock/Kallis/Klusener

ENG 98 Donald/Pollock/Ntini/McMillan/Kallis

ENG 99 Donald/Pollock/hayward/Klusener/Kallis

I think there is more, but i'm not sure..

Why on earth would you advocate the lack of a spinner and give 5 examples where South Africa only won 1 of the matches. Don't you think that just maybe a spinner on a last day pitch may have been useful?

 

[Manee]

Only Kallis tops him as a fifth bowling option in tests currently IMHO.

Watson is not far behind, I'd only agree that Kallis is better as he is far more proven at Test level than Watson, in regards to both fitness and longevity of effectiveness.

Swing the key, obv. When he doesn't move the ball he can look a bit up-and-down as he's basically a wicket to wicket bowler, but any bowler who can move the ball at 85mph is useful as a fourth seamer.

Indeed, and as the fifth bowler - you can just take him off when he is looking ordinary.

 

[stephen]

Ok I made a statement about Aus having a 4 man attack that was taken in a way that I did not mean it to be taken.

Sure Watson has been incredible this summer and has really done a great job at the 5th bowler position. What I meant was that Australia has 4 frontline bowlers who are expected to put in 20+ overs an innings if necessary. I would never expect Watson to bowl that much.

Having Watson in the team makes Haurtiz' position even more safe IMO. Until Aus can unearth another quality spinner (and Krezja looks like he's doing a good job at the moment) Haurtz' position is - and should be - secure.

 

[social]

Peter Roebuck

Pretty fair summary from Roebuck although a little harsh on Dougie - he's looked a quality bowler this summer

 

[social]

Imagine being an Oz selector

Good pay

Big expense account

Lots of travel

Zero Accountability

How do I get a gig like that?

 

[Noble One]

Peter Roebuck

Pretty fair summary from Roebuck although a little harsh on Dougie - he's looked a quality bowler this summer

Didn't mind this article, rather echoes the opinions of this thread. Harsh on Doug Bollinger though, I thought he was solid throughout the Sydney Test. Find it strange he could praise and rate Umar Gul over Bollinger. Umar Gul was insipid on Day 1, and lacked the same fire on the morning of Day 4. Bollinger never dropped his bundle all Test.