*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[outbreak]

With the way johnsons bowling atm Mcdonald probably wouldn't be that far behind i guess :P
Don't think the selectors would see it that way (plus he's injured) though i'm thinking they'd want a proper quick. I don't get everyone talking about how bad our batting depth would be if we bring in Harris/Bollinger. Has Johnson really done ANYTHING in the last year or more with the bat? May be a long shot but if we're considering McDonald what about Hastings? Averages about 25 with both bat and ball iirc which is better then Johnson's shield record isn't it? Probably hasn't taken anywhere near as many wickets though. All our bowlers (besides siddle) are underperforming though so we really need 3 genuine pacers and a genuine spinner atm

I can't see Doherty being dropped, i thought he looked pretty good with the ball. I had wanted O'keefe in over him if a change was made though which would have added more batting depth.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Johnson?

It'd be like replacing Harmison with a slightly-better-bowling, significantly-worse-batting Collingwood.

Would contribute to the side more than the incumbent, but the majority would call for your medication to be upped.

 

[Woodster]

I don't suppose Australia want to get into the situation of selecting bits and pieces players to bat at 8 and 9. I think Harris would be more than capable at batting there, but it's his bowling that would win his selection. First and foremost the incoming bowlers would have to be penetrative bowlers at first-class standard because this is what Australia will be looking at them doing, Someone like McDonald may be economical and add useful runs with the bat, but wouldn't threaten enough with the ball imo, to stake a claim as a specialist bowler.

 

[Howe_zat]

AWTA. Still, McDonald >> North.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If Australia manages to **** this up I'm going to fire up Civ 2 and invade England.

And unlike Philip II, Napoleon, Hitler, Julius Caesar and Ponting, I'm going to do it properly.

 

[howardj]

I don't suppose Australia want to get into the situation of selecting bits and pieces players to bat at 8 and 9. I think Harris would be more than capable at batting there, but it's his bowling that would win his selection. First and foremost the incoming bowlers would have to be penetrative bowlers at first-class standard because this is what Australia will be looking at them doing, Someone like McDonald may be economical and add useful runs with the bat, but wouldn't threaten enough with the ball imo, to stake a claim as a specialist bowler.

Excellent piece.

 

[outbreak]

just throwing ideas around what about if Haddin could push up to number 6, would that give an option for a number 7 all rounder like Mcdonald while keeping our 3 genuine quicks. North would be the one to get dropped. If they did this i'd think they'd pick smith though for the slot.

 

[Woodster]

just throwing ideas around what about if Haddin could push up to number 6, would that give an option for a number 7 all rounder like Mcdonald while keeping our 3 genuine quicks. North would be the one to get dropped. If they did this i'd think they'd pick smith though for the slot.

Would that actually add any threat to the Australian attack though ? It would give them another medium paced option, but I don't think they are short on these options. Imo, that would not necessarily strengthen the bowling attack, and if they select Smith, I don't think at this stage it would add much to the batting either, on paper.

For me if Ryan Harris is fit he woudl have to come into serious consideration, and should Bollinger take a hatful at the WACA for NSW, then he'll also give another good reason for his inclusion. They do have decent options, it's just finding the right blend of bowlers in the XI.

 

[Howe_zat]

I doubt adding McDonald as a 4th seamer would really be necessary with Watson in that role. I don't really rate Watson much as a bowler but is just as likely to take wickets as McDonald from that position. I can sort of see the value in stacking the batting and playing Smith or McDonald at 7/8 but it's probably best to go with the 3 most threatening seamers on a flat deck at Adelaide, which at this point is probably Harris, Siddle and Bollinger.

 

[Tom 1972]

Our best wicket-taking attack at present:

Harris
Bollinger
Siddle
Krejza

I have to agree with this. Granted Krazy will go for a few but he does give himself a chance by tossing it up.

Johnson is such hit & miss confidence player. He might go out today and get a few quick wickets - who really knows.

PS: Kudos to the Poms for murdering the bowling yesterday...Ruined my day on the couch.

 

[Howe_zat]

Don't really see the logic behind dropping Johnson as hit & miss but including Krezja...

 

[Woodster]

Our best wicket-taking attack at present:

Harris
Bollinger
Siddle
Krejza

Yes that does look a decent line-up, although I haven't seen anything of Krejza since he toured India with the Aussies. I do like the lines he bowled over there, very aggressive, typical Aussie lines for an offie I suppose. Has he progressed since that series or still very much the same bowler ? Thought he looked decent anyway.

Do you actually think they would seriously consider dropping Johnson and Hilfenhaus ?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Johnson, yes. Hilfenhaus hasn't been quite so conspicuous as a liability, he just seems to need to revise his line (whether anyone's got in his ear about it is another question). Mitch's temperament, on the other hand, looks shot and it's become evident in all facets of his game. He's not going to win us the Ashes.

 

[Tom 1972]

Don't really see the logic behind dropping Johnson as hit & miss but including Krezja...

I understand your thinking, but I guess the question is whether Krezja or Doherty is more likely to take wickets. I really am unsure. I don't see it as Johnson for Krezja.

On the quicks, pick your best three from Johnson, Siddle, Hilf, Bollinger, Harris.

I watched most of days 3 and 4 on the teev. I think that England out-bowled us.

Bottom line - what combination is best likely to take 20 wickets?

On the batting side.
All we should be relying upon is, say 50 runs from our bottom 4 batters. Anything more is a bonus. If we are needing the tail to wag for 100 runs we've got bigger batting issues (which we seem to by the way).

 

[Woodster]

England have their own problems too with regards the bowling. During the afternoon session on day three when the Hussey and Haddin partnership was in full flow, we looked to have an average attack, nothing out of the ordinary to take a wicket. Swann's effect has so far been nullified to a degree, although I do think he still has a major part to play if not in this Test then later in the series. Imo, we lack a genuine out and out paceman to really ruffle set batsmen and take the pitch out of the equation with searing yorkers. But I suppose every nation craves such a speedster.

 

[Pup Clarke]

England have their own problems too with regards the bowling. During the afternoon session on day three when the Hussey and Haddin partnership was in full flow, we looked to have an average attack, nothing out of the ordinary to take a wicket. Swann's effect has so far been nullified to a degree, although I do think he still has a major part to play if not in this Test then later in the series. Imo, we lack a genuine out and out paceman to really ruffle set batsmen and take the pitch out of the equation with searing yorkers. But I suppose every nation craves such a speedster.

I honestly think Broad's on his way to becoming that. He's bowling very aggressively these days.

 

[Howe_zat]

England have their own problems too with regards the bowling. During the afternoon session on day three when the Hussey and Haddin partnership was in full flow, we looked to have an average attack, nothing out of the ordinary to take a wicket. Swann's effect has so far been nullified to a degree, although I do think he still has a major part to play if not in this Test then later in the series. Imo, we lack a genuine out and out paceman to really ruffle set batsmen and take the pitch out of the equation with searing yorkers. But I suppose every nation craves such a speedster.

Agreed, without new-ball movement England seemed a bit lacking, especially when Swann was bowling pretty ordinarily. Obviously we could do with some real spice in the attack, but outside of Steyn & Morkel (and Johnson on a good day), is there anyone in world cricket who can do that? Broad has been trying but he's always more effective when he finds the good length, rather than when he attempts his back of a length pace and bustle.

 

[Woodster]

I honestly think Broad's on his way to becoming that. He's bowling very aggressively these days.

Tbh I'm not sure what Broad is on his way to becoming. He's improved no end as a bowler but not entirely what exact type of bowler he is or will become. I don't think he'll ever be a consistenly quick and hostile bowler in the Shoaib/Lee style. We know he's capable of very fiery spells at very quick pace, but not every spell, only perhaps when the situation demands. His average pace in this Test must only be around 83/84 mph.

 

[Blocky]

The pitch isn't condusive to pace bowling unless the ball is swinging or you're un-erring in your accuracy. Neither side have done this for long periods although Finn and Siddle showed signs of it.

Personally, I think Strauss should bat all day and let his bowlers have another rest, he can demoralise Australia some more, make some of their sore bowlers and batsmen ( Clarke ) run around in the field all day and put some big pressure on guys like North, Doherty and Johnson to shake up Australia's strategy after the first test.

Get more from that then getting 3-4 wickets at the end of the day with Australia chasing a target in my view.

 

[Woodster]

Agreed, without new-ball movement England seemed a bit lacking, especially when Swann was bowling pretty ordinarily. Obviously we could do with some real spice in the attack, but outside of Steyn & Morkel (and Johnson on a good day), is there anyone in world cricket who can do that? Broad has been trying but he's always more effective when he finds the good length, rather than when he attempts his back of a length pace and bustle.

Yes you're right it's not just a problem England have it's a general lack of these type of bowlers worldwide. It is so exciting when a genuine quick comes on the scene, think Simon Jones was probably our last (and obviously Harmy and Freddie in spells), and he loved just throwing it down as quick as he could, normally over 90mph, until the injuries hit. But there was a buzz around when he came on to bowl, an English bowler (well Welsh) that could have the top batsmen hopping around, how thrilling.