*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Prince EWS]

That's his natural line though. He's still unlucky if he's swinging the ball and missing the edge.

Which brings me back to the point that unlucky bowlers don't win Test matches. It's not a problem that's going to go away, so he's just going to continue being "unlucky". Taking wickets with **** balls > beating the edge with good balls, on a long-term basis.

 

[GotSpin]

Even if Bollinger is under-cooked, it reeks of double standards. Clarke wasn't 100% fit either....

Much more dangerous for Bollinger to be undercooked than Clarke.

Clarke scored some good runs in the FC fixture and he's actual form has never been influenced by his back

 

[social]

I think there's more to Hilfenhaus just not taking that many wickets than just being "unlucky" though, really. He's a good bowler, but his bowling style and his minor flaws make him look better than he is. He swings it straight from the hand which looks good on TV and in the stands but is a lot easier to play as a batsman than someone who swings it late like an Aamer for example, and he doesn't attack the stumps which gives the batsman freedom to leave a lot of him (and unlike with Johnson, they tend to). Furthermore, he only moves the ball one way which makes him less effective to right handers than he'd otherwise be - against left handers, the one that angles across with that off-cut action is a very useful variation, but he's been unable to set right handers up for it because it just doesn't move enough or have enough angle on it to really cause a problem.

With the swing he gets, his natural length is just a fraction short to take the edge (hence the "unluckiness" with the plays and misses which aren't a coincidence IMO) and if he pitches it up further the batsmen can line him up because it swings so early.

As I said, he's a good bowler and I'd have him in the team, but I think these factors make him less effective than he first appears.

Spot on

 

[GotSpin]

Which brings me back to the point that unlucky bowlers don't win Test matches. It's not a problem that's going to go away, so he's just going to continue being "unlucky". Taking wickets with **** balls > beating the edge with good balls, on a long-term basis.

And like I said before, I believe (or hope) that he won't be as unlucky because as he showed in India, he could move it both ways, and has a good bouncer and yorker.

Even if he keeps his natural line at a back of a length, if he uses his change up ball to bring it back into the batsmen or a yorker/bouncer, there's no reason why he shouldn't pick up more wickets.

 

[Julian87]

Australia's bowling

8 Mitch Johnson
9 Ben Hilfenhaus
10 Pete Siddle
11 Xavier Doherty

vs

NSW's bowling

8 Steve O'Keefe
9 Trent Copeland
10 Mark Cameron
11 Doug Bollinger

_____________

I know which I'd pick 10 times out of 10.

 

[Julian87]

Much more dangerous for Bollinger to be undercooked than Clarke.

Clarke scored some good runs in the FC fixture and he's actual form has never been influenced by his back

Bollinger took some good wickets in said shield game tbh.

 

[social]

That's his natural line though. He's still unlucky if he's swinging the ball and missing the edge.

For a couple of years, Jason Gillespie was also an "unlucky" bowler

Then he started pitching the thing up further and "miraculously" the edges started to come

I'm in full agreement with PEWS here - Hilf's lack of wickets is due more to faults in his bowling more than bad luck

 

[GotSpin]

Bollinger took some good wickets in said shield game tbh.

Watson and Copeland out performed him

 

[Prince EWS]

Australia's bowling

8 Mitch Johnson
9 Ben Hilfenhaus
10 Pete Siddle
11 Xavier Doherty

vs

NSW's bowling

8 Steve O'Keefe
9 Trent Copeland
10 Mark Cameron
11 Doug Bollinger

_____________

I know which I'd pick 10 times out of 10.

Haha yeah AWTA.

 

[GotSpin]

For a couple of years, Jason Gillespie was also an "unlucky" bowler

Then he started pitching the thing up further and "miraculously" the edges started to come

I'm in full agreement with PEWS here - Hilf's lack of wickets is due more to faults in his bowling more than bad luck

I'm not just saying it's all bad luck, but that I believe he has the capabilities to reverse it

 

[Ruckus]

Australia's bowling

8 Mitch Johnson
9 Ben Hilfenhaus
10 Pete Siddle
11 Xavier Doherty

vs

NSW's bowling

8 Steve O'Keefe
9 Trent Copeland
10 Mark Cameron
11 Doug Bollinger

_____________

I know which I'd pick 10 times out of 10.

The latter could quite well be the best bowling attack in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

Which brings me back to the point that unlucky bowlers don't win Test matches. It's not a problem that's going to go away, so he's just going to continue being "unlucky". Taking wickets with **** balls > beating the edge with good balls, on a long-term basis.

haha, must kill you to say that.

Anyway, Hilf has the same problem as Gillespie which is a much bigger problem away from home; a foot too short. Swing of any sort is going to useless without that little detail being sorted.

 

[Julian87]

Watson and Copeland out performed him

So you'd dop a bowler every time they're not the number 1 performer in a game?

Harsh tbh.

 

[Spark]

Haha yeah AWTA.

Clear selectoral anti-NSW bias tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

The latter could quite well be the best bowling attack in the world.

Stuart Clark as backup too.

 

[Julian87]

The latter could quite well be the best bowling attack in the world.

We'd have a better chance of winning the Ashes with that + Watson as our bowling attack itbt.

 

[GotSpin]

So you'd dop a bowler every time they're not the number 1 performer in a game?

Harsh tbh.

I never said I'd drop Bollinger...I've stated the opposite a number of times.

 

[Ruckus]

We'd have a better chance of winning the Ashes with that + Watson as our bowling attack itbt.

Yeah WAY better chance imo. It would be quite a gamble, but I think it would pay off.

 

[Julian87]

Much more dangerous for Bollinger to be undercooked than Clarke.

Clarke scored some good runs in the FC fixture and he's actual form has never been influenced by his back

Bollinger took some good wickets in said shield game tbh.

Watson and Copeland out performed him

I never said I'd drop Bollinger...I've stated the opposite a number of times.

well....

 

[Prince EWS]

haha, must kill you to say that.

Haha, a bit. It's obviously different when it's a short sample size as you can just assume it'll reverse itself, but after it goes on for a while you just have to face the fact that something might be going on that you don't realise - either preventing a bowler from taking the wickets you'd expect, or allowing him to take wickets you don't expect. Johnson's a great example of the latter - there's only so long a fluke can last, and it's definitely a number shy of 166 wickets and 38 Tests.