*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[vicleggie]

Johnson, in his entire career, has never really been accurate and it would be somewhat optimistic to believe he could solely rely on accurate areas as his new method of taking wickets

i didnt say 'solely' on accuracy, i just think its a good start, as opposed to 'wanging it down as fast as you can', and looking like a lamb to the slaughter.

if he starts bowling in good areas, his confidence will improve. in turn, his pace will probably return. then he can focus on swinging it and doing more with the ball

 

[GotSpin]

i didnt say 'solely' on accuracy, i just think its a good start, as opposed to 'wanging it down as fast as you can', and looking like a lamb to the slaughter.

if he starts bowling in good areas, his confidence will improve. in turn, his pace will probably return. then he can focus on swinging it and doing more with the ball

I agree. But he needs to go do this in First Class, not at the expense of our Ashes series.

 

[vicleggie]

I agree. But he needs to go do this in First Class, not at the expense of our Ashes series.

No qualms there! Thats why im all the more miffed by the fact that he seemed to come into this match without a basic idea of how to bowl, like he thought he could just work everything out in the middle, bang it in and get wickets.

he needs a lot more practice in shield cricket- a bit of getting back to basics. didnt hurt bowlers like brett lee after the 03-04 disaster

 

[Redbacks]

I agree. But he needs to go do this in First Class, not at the expense of our Ashes series.

Didn't he get a bag of 5 and a hundred in the last game for WA? His technique isn't good enough and causes some good days and bad days to be a fact of life with Mitch. Surely we can find better

 

[Redbacks]

To be honest if Australia don't change their bowling attack England will fancy their chances of scoring heavily.

Word from the England camp is that they fancy their chances even with new inclusions. There is no world class quick waiting in the wings to scare them at the moment.

 

[vicleggie]

Didn't he get a bag of 5 and a hundred in the last game for WA? His technique isn't good enough and causes some good days and bad days to be a fact of life with Mitch. Surely we can find better

better for this series for sure
but if he wants to return to any sort of form he just needs to bowl more- and not jsut bowl, but bowl wiht purpose and planning - not uncontrolled energy

its ridiculous that a 27 year old doesnt know hisown game well enough to find out what isnt happening for him, and work on it
guys like mcgrath gillespie kasperwicsz were good because they knew their games and nobody had to tell them how to bowl , they were dedicated to beingthe best they could be

harris and bollinger seem to know their respective games pretty well- theyre a tad older and more experienced. id give them a go

 

[howardj]

Yeah a change is happening for sure, you can't get 1/517 and continue with the same attack just 3 days later.

If Bollinger and Harris both come in, they will be under considerable pressure, if they don't perform what next, I hate to think..

Agreed.

Surely nobody can tolerate 1 for 500 odd.

At least Doug and Harris know their games, attack the stumps and are in form.

 

[Ruckus]

Agreed.

Surely nobody can tolerate 1 for 500 odd.

At least Doug and Harris know their games, attack the stumps and are in form.

Australia v England, 2nd Test, Adelaide: Tim Nielsen backs struggling Mitchell Johnson | Cricket News | The Ashes 2010-11 | ESPN Cricinfo

More of the same bull****...

 

[howardj]

Australia v England, 2nd Test, Adelaide: Tim Nielsen backs struggling Mitchell Johnson | Cricket News | The Ashes 2010-11 | ESPN Cricinfo

More of the same bull****...

Geez he talks some ****, doesn't he.

It would just be their way, to be contrary by retaining Mitch.

Let the guy go away and get his confidence back, away from the glaring scrutiny of the Ashes furnace.

 

[social]

Word from the England camp is that they fancy their chances even with new inclusions. There is no world class quick waiting in the wings to scare them at the moment.

Cant imagine that the Australians are exactly quaking in their boots either!

Anyway, Bollinger and Harris would be a MASSIVE improvement over what we saw in the first test - danger is that neither will play and if that's the case, it's odds-on to be another bore draw as neither attack from the first test should take 20 wickets on a normal Adelaide wicket

 

[howardj]

Amazing how in one test match Hilf has gone from hero to droppable

Don't know about hero, but that's the nature of bowling selection.

Batsmen can be unlucky, get a good ball and it's all over in two minutes - and thus they often get several games to prove themselves.

It's different with a bowler. They can bowl 30 overs in an innings, and thus in just one game you get a good look at them and what they are capable of.

We got a real good look at Johnson and Hilf at the Gabba over a sustained period. Granted, it was a flat pitch, but geez they didn't set the world alight.

 

[pasag]

Tim Neilsen needs the boot as well. Replace him with Tom Moody, what's he doing these days?

 

[GotSpin]

Thought your question was about Tim Neilson for a second...Would have been a fair one too

 

[iamdavid]

After reading a British article entitled "These Aussies can't catch, can't bowl & can't scare us", it got me thinking - what could Australia do to put some fear back into the English side for the upcoming Adelaide test?

As a whimsical hypothetical, do you think there is any way we could compile a squad that would actually make England feel somewhat uncertain and lose some of their confidence?

Currently, I think if the Aus squad stayed the same, England would go into Adelaide at a peak in confidence - they know our attack doesn't have any weapons which can harm them, and that some their bowlers can trouble our batsmen. Given that, I propose the following team which I think could instill some uncertainty back into their side:

Watson
Hughes (although he hasn't performed well against England, they know he can take a game away from them)
Ponting
M Hussey
D Hussey (in for Clarke, because they probably now see his injury as a weakness to exploit. Plus they would be aware of his dominant FC career)
Katich
Haddin
O'Keefe (in for Doherty. He performed pretty well against them in the Aus A game and scalped Pietersen. Plus they know he is a good batsmen.)
Harris (has ominous recent form and is an intimidating figure)
Copeland (X-factor bowler, they would know almost nothing about. Freakish FC stats.)
Bollinger (excellent recent form coupled with an impressive start to his test career).

So overall they would see a line-up with good batting down to no. 8, a dangerous opening combination, a spinner who has perfomed well against their batsmen and a potent and foreign looking fast bowling attack. This may not be the best team for the game, but I think it could bring some fear back to the Poms before it starts.

If I had to pick a side to play for my life in Adelaide that's pretty close to what I'd choose. I know it isn't how things tend to be done in the modern game, but sometimes, especially for big test series like this, I wish they'd just put all the BS to the side and pick the best 11 available cricketers. Forget about age, the need to develop youth, who gets along behind the scenes, the need for consistency in selections. It's the bloody Ashes, the time for building a side and *****footing around with selections will come later, right now it'd be really nice to just win...

1.Watson
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Clarke
5.M Hussey
6.D Hussey (would be Hodge if he still played FC)
7.Haddin
8.O'Keefe (Loses nothing to Doherty/Hauritz as a bowler and adds plenty with the bat)
9.Harris
10.Siddle or Hilfenhaus
11.Bollinger

 

[Howe_zat]

Adelaide curator to prepare a pitch he hopes will produce a result | Adelaide Now

Good news, I guess?

 

[Prince EWS]

Adelaide curator to prepare a pitch he hopes will produce a result | Adelaide Now

Good news, I guess?

Haha. I don't even know if it's possible.

 

[Howe_zat]

Haha. I don't even know if it's possible.

Yeah, I remain sceptical. But if they can do it, I'll go with that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah a change is happening for sure, you can't get 1/517 and continue with the same attack just 3 days later.

Not saying I wouldn't change the team (I would) but I really quite disagree with the logic there. Anything that relies on a sample size of one game is inherently flawed. I know it's blasphemy to suggest it around here, but it is possible that Australia's best bowlers might concede 517/1 to England on a road once out of every 200 innings.

I didn't think that was Australia's best attack before the match, and I still don't. But while it shouldn't mean nothing, one match shouldn't mean everything either and there shouldn't be a hard and fast rule about change for the sake of change in the event of one poor performance. That's how teams really start finding themselves shooting down the rankings, because instead of relying in their best eleven cricketers all the time, the constant dropping and tweaking sees them rely on a lucky dip of their best 25 or so for each game.

Now I'm sure someone will quote my post and point out that it hasn't been just one game, or that Bollinger's quite arguably Australia's best bowler and didn't play, or that Australia's current team isn't their best eleven cricketers today, tomorrow or yesterday - but I'm aware of all those things, which is why I'd make slight changes to the team. I just disagree with the logic that you must change the team every time you perform poorly in one game.

 

[tooextracool]

If you ask me, Australia are in a better position than England. The result of the match has at least identified Australia's weaknesses - the bowling and North and if anything those players are likely to be replaced.

As far as England is concerned, the result has masked the fact that they batted very poorly in the first innings and the fact that Finn shouldn't be playing. You can guarantee that England will be unchanged for the 2nd test even though 3/4 bowlers bowled poorly out there and we definitely didnt have our best 4 bowlers playing.

 

[Faisal1985]

Not saying I wouldn't change the team (I would) but I really quite disagree with the logic there. Anything that relies on a sample size of one game is inherently flawed. I know it's blasphemy to suggest it around here, but it is possible that Australia's best bowlers might concede 517/1 to England on a road once out of every 200 innings.

I didn't think that was Australia's best attack before the match, and I still don't. But while it shouldn't mean nothing, one match shouldn't mean everything either and there shouldn't be a hard and fast rule about change for the sake of change in the event of one poor performance. That's how teams really start finding themselves shooting down the rankings, because instead of relying in their best eleven cricketers all the time, the constant dropping and tweaking sees them rely on a lucky dip of their best 25 or so for each game.

Now I'm sure someone will quote my post and point out that it hasn't been just one game, or that Bollinger's quite arguably Australia's best bowler and didn't play, or that Australia's current team isn't their best eleven cricketers today, tomorrow or yesterday - but I'm aware of all those things, which is why I'd make slight changes to the team. I just disagree with the logic that you must change the team every time you perform poorly in one game.

It hasn't been just one game, and Bollinger's quite arguably Australia's best bowler and didn't play. And Australia's current team isn't their best eleven cricketers today, tomorrow or yesterday.