*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[flibbertyjibber]

Remember Adelaide 06. That's what i'll be saying to myself all day.

That was a great Aussie side with some ATG bowlers in it.This isn't.

Draw should be achieved and we should keep them out in the field all day and make them stew on a missed opportunity to win.

 

[four_or_six]

That's because he bowled tripe in the first innings. To suggest this has anything to do with Ponting is absurd.

I just think Ponting would have been better giving him more overs, iirc Australia bowled six players before lunch, which is a bit overkill. Hussain was making an interesting point that Ponting was changing plans too often. He was saying that when he had his average England attack he had to hold his patience for longer and give the bowlers more time trying each plan, rather than chopping and changing.

 

[pup11]

The guy took a five-wicket hall and scored a hundred in the match leading up to the test. And yet Ponting's refusal to bowl him for most of the first two sessions has put him under the microscope more than he would be. I think Ponting should have just given the ball to Siddle and Johnson early in the day and told them to get on with it.

Haha... mate Watson too took a 5-for in the his last FC appearance, so therefore all that doesn't matter in a test match. The thing is Johnson has been poor not only in this game but for a while and someone like him just can't be your go-to man in the bowling attack and I'm happy if Ponting is starting to realise that now.
On a sidenote... Hilfy is being made to a bowl a lot of overs by Ponting in recent tests hope he isn't bowling him into the ground.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Hilfy is being made to a bowl a lot of overs by Ponting in recent tests hope he isn't bowling him into the ground.

Like he did in England and then lost him for months because of his injury.

 

[Prince EWS]

However would we survive without Hilfenhaus? He should definitely be wrapped in cotton wool so he can be of even less use to the team for an extended period without being injured.

Seriously, he's a good bowler, but he's not as good a bowler as Doug Bollinger or Mitchell Johnson (form withstanding) and not in as good form as Pete Siddle. If his utility is bowling long spells as a stock bowler at the moment, then that's what he should do - him getting injured is not of a great concern to me.

 

[Spikey]

Mitchell Johnson's stats don't seem bad. But you've gotta remember he's suppose to be our leader, our strike bowler and go to man. Right now he's none of that. And he hasn't been for many a moon. I'd probably sooner drop Hilf for Adelaide but if he goes I won't be upset.

 

[Prince EWS]

Mitchell Johnson's stats don't seem bad. But you've gotta remember he's suppose to be our leader, our strike bowler and go to man. Right now he's none of that. And he hasn't been for many a moon. I'd probably sooner drop Hilf for Adelaide but if he goes I won't be upset.

Actually think this is a poor point. He doesn't have to be our best bowler to keep his place. Okay, he might not be functioning as our strike bowler, but he's doing Hilfenhaus's job better than Hilfenhaus. If your best batsman starts performing as your second best batsman, do you drop him for not doing his job?

If you want to drop Johnson because you don't think he's one of Australia's best three bowlers then fine, I can see that argument. I disagree but it's logical. Dropping him because he's not Australia's best bowler though will leave you with an attack featuring Doug Bollinger and no-one else.

 

[Johnners]

But it's not one bad match. It's about six.

He just does not cope with the pressure of an Ashes situation at all, and the English batsmen seem to have none of the troubles other batsmen from other countries have in playing him.

It's actually about 3 matches (well 4 if you include this one). 2nd match vs India, and the 2 vs Pakistan in India. Without Johnson, we were never going to be in a position of winning that first match vs India. If we can't afford a bloke who has comfortably been our top wicket taker from 08, until June this year, 3/4 poor matches, we really are turning into a bunch of cynical pessmitic supporters. I firmly believe we cannot win this Ashes without Johnson. He certainly hasn't bowled his best this match, and unless we have an Adelaide-esque mircale, it seems certain to end in a draw, so it's not a complete disaster. If the selectors give him the same chances they give to the batsmen and don't drop him, he'll win us this series.

The bloke takes wickets, period. I don't care how "lucky" he may or may not be, bottom line is, he almost always takes wickets. More than we can say for Ben "oooh he tries hard, looks good, is so unlucky" Hilfenhaus. If Mitch gets dropped before Hilfenhaus it's a ****ing joke.

 

[pup11]

However would we survive without Hilfenhaus? He should definitely be wrapped in cotton wool so he can be of even less use to the team for an extended period without being injured.

Seriously, he's a good bowler, but he's not as good a bowler as Doug Bollinger or Mitchell Johnson (form withstanding) and not in as good form as Pete Siddle. If his utility is bowling long spells as a stock bowler at the moment, then that's what he should do - him getting injured of not of a great concern to me.

Bowlers like batsmen work in pairs, since Hilfenhaus made his debut he has never had a bowler who has bowled decently in tandem with him from the other end, but despite that he has carried the load of the whole bowling attack on his shoulders.
It also doesn't help him when he is expected to do both stop the flow of runs and also take wickets, the fact that most of the times he is bowling more overs then he should also indicates that the rest of the bowlers aren't doing their bit.

 

[Johnners]

Bowlers like batsmen work in pairs, since Hilfenhaus made his debut he has never had a bowler who has bowled decently in tandem with him from the other end, but despite that he has carried the load of the whole bowling attack on his shoulders.
It also doesn't help him when he is expected to do both stop the flow of runs and also take wickets, the fact that most of the times he is bowling more overs then he should also indicates that the rest of the bowlers aren't doing their bit.

Pretty sure they'd appreciate Hilf doing his bit by actually taking some wickets.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Thought Ponting's captaincy was pretty ordinary today and I don't approach his skippering with high expectations. Was ball following for the most part.

Really think Oz need to get past this self-defeating "he can't play on once he's no longer captain" idea. Australia still need his runs, but he's not cutting the mustard as a captain any more. If his peers like Sachin, Lara and Dravid can return to the ranks after leading the side, why not Punter?

It's a matter of pride, supported by tradition. It's often bandied about (semi-seriously) in Australia that the second-most influential person in the country - aside from the PM - is the Test captain. It's entirely unthinkable that someone would turn down the Test captaincy like Mark Butcher did if it was offered to them. The formula for consistent captaincy policy started with Border, after it became painfully obvious that the Hughes/Yallop selection cluster**** had gimped the team beyond repair. If one's captaincy was predicated on results, Border would have been stripped of it well before he turned the side around. After sticking with Border yielded serious results, it was agreed that the captain's authority - bolstered by length of stay - was vital to a winning side. It's why they've never dropped a captain on results since then and even refused to drop them on form. It's not a flawless policy, but it correlates very tightly with Australia's winning period.

A Test captaincy nod in Australia is a permanent invitation to lead and the idea of another captain existing in the same team (and dressing room, and press conferences) as Ponting would cause a natural division of loyalty as to who the leader - as opposed to the titular captain - of the side was. That would be nothing but destructive considering how long Ponting's been leading the side and nurturing most of its personalities - who would probably flock to him if there was a split in the team. With the weight attached to Ponting's legacy, there's every chance of a Pakistan-like split should things go **** up.

In any case, Ponting, for all his tactical incompetence, is an exemplary leader of men and unusually productive with the captain's knock. Captaincy isn't completely about setting fields; even Brearley attested to that in The Art of Captaincy. It's probably the easiest failing to delegate, as well - Warnie set an awful lot of Ponting's fields before he retired, and I'd hazard to guess that it's not just Ponting within the team who's out of ideas now re: field placements.

 

[pup11]

Actually think this is a poor point. He doesn't have to be our best bowler to keep his place. Okay, he might not be functioning as our strike bowler, but he's doing Hilfenhaus's job better than Hilfenhaus. If your best batsman starts performing as your second best batsman, do you drop him for not doing his job?

If you want to drop Johnson because you don't think he's one of Australia's best three bowlers then fine, I can see that argument. I disagree but it's logical. Dropping him because he's not Australia's best bowler though will leave you with an attack featuring Doug Bollinger and no-one else.

Didn't knew that Hilfenhaus' role in the team is to run in and give runs away at 4 an over and aim for the cut strip outside off....

 

[pasag]

That was a great Aussie side with some ATG bowlers in it.This isn't.

Draw should be achieved and we should keep them out in the field all day and make them stew on a missed opportunity to win.

It's just as much a missed opportunity for England, really, and I think today proved that.

 

[Redbacks]

It is very similar to us with Harmison,carried on picking him for far too long as he had previously won games but then dropped another guy (Hoggard) harshly for having one bad game and you wonder what the selectors are doing.

He's probably still just living on previous credits but very close to being dropped

I think a better comparison to Harmison would be when we next face RSA. Given the great success Mitch has had against them, it would be a similar type scenario if he was listed as a key man based on past performances which differ greatly from current output.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It's just as much a missed opportunity for England, really, and I think today proved that.

Not really.We were skittled for 260 and you ended with a 200 run lead.At the end of day 3 Australia were firm favourites to go 1 up,at no stage of the game could you say England were firm favourites to win.

Once more we have shown we are a stubborn side,it may go belly up tomorrow but we have shown today we have some fight in our ranks and are up for the challenge.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's a matter of pride, supported by tradition. It's often bandied about (semi-seriously) in Australia that the second-most influential person in the country - aside from the PM - is the Test captain. It's entirely unthinkable that someone would turn down the Test captaincy like Mark Butcher did if it was offered to them. The formula for consistent captaincy policy started with Border, after it became painfully obvious that the Hughes/Yallop selection cluster**** had gimped the team beyond repair. If one's captaincy was predicated on results, Border would have been stripped of it well before he turned the side around. After sticking with Border yielded serious results, it was agreed that the captain's authority - bolstered by length of stay - was vital to a winning side. It's why they've never dropped a captain on results since then and even refused to drop them on form. It's not a flawless policy, but it correlates very tightly with Australia's winning period.

A Test captaincy nod in Australia is a permanent invitation to lead and the idea of another captain existing in the same team (and dressing room, and press conferences) as Ponting would cause a natural division of loyalty as to who the leader - as opposed to the titular captain - of the side was. That would be nothing but destructive considering how long Ponting's been leading the side and nurturing most of its personalities - who would probably flock to him if there was a split in the team. With the weight attached to Ponting's legacy, there's every chance of a Pakistan-like split should things go **** up.

In any case, Ponting, for all his tactical incompetence, is an exemplary leader of men and unusually productive with the captain's knock. Captaincy isn't completely about setting fields; even Brearley attested to that in The Art of Captaincy. It's probably the easiest failing to delegate, as well - Warnie set an awful lot of Ponting's fields before he retired, and I'd hazard to guess that it's not just Ponting within the team who's out of ideas now re: field placements.

He usually does have quite a tight grip on the plot in that respect, but it's loosened a little recently from what I've seen. His public "Hauritz sets his own fields" protestation was either self-serving or disingenuous and in either event hung poor Doogie rather out to dry and turning to Watson before Johnson probably sent something of an interesting message to his putative spearhead too.

 

[Howe_zat]

Wow, looks like the Mitchell did so badly, everyone's forgotten how much they hate Marcus North.

 

[pup11]

Pretty sure they'd appreciate Hilf doing his bit by actually taking some wickets.

As I said you can't expect Hilfenhaus to stop the flow of runs and take wickets at the same time, which is what Ponting has been asking of him right since he made his debut in the 09 Ashes.
The other quicks apart from Bollinger have all been guilty of leaking runs and not bowling to the plan and Hilfenhaus has been the one filling in their overs, pretty sure if both Bollinger and Hilfenhaus play as the part of the same attack one would see improvement in Hilfy's wicket taking capacity and that would also raise the potency of the Aussie attack, 2nd innings at Mohali is a good example of this.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wow, looks like the Mitchell did so badly, everyone's forgotten how much they hate Marcus North.

North took more wickets and scored more runs than Johnson tbf. Based on the evidence of this Test he should be batting eight as the spinner in Adelaide.

 

[pasag]

Not really.We were skittled for 260 and you ended with a 200 run lead.At the end of day 3 Australia were firm favourites to go 1 up,at no stage of the game could you say England were firm favourites to win.

Once more we have shown we are a stubborn side,it may go belly up tomorrow but we have shown today we have some fight in our ranks and are up for the challenge.

Yes, but you shouldn't have been skittled for 260 with batting conditions really not that tough. You can kind of spin this any way you like but England should rue not going 1-0 up, just like Australia should.