*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Pup Clarke]

Aye

 

[tridibans]

I was thinking the same when he bowled on the fourth morning. But Strauss and Cook looked soo comfortable against him regardless. Even when he does bowl one of his better spells these days he's still not as good as people think.

Like Harmison.

TBH i actually believe he just needs a good spell... perhaps if he plays in the later tests. He did bowl some good deliveries in Brisbane.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, you're right. My boob.

 

[tridibans]

BTW is it just me or has Johnson actually lost quite a bit of pace this summer?

 

[Furball]

It had to be didn't it!

This one went well as well:

3rd Test: Australia v India at Perth, Jan 16-19, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Having said that, they went pretty well by playing 4 quicks in the first 2 Tests in South Africa (although I've never seen McDonald bowl, so I might be flattering him hugely by describing him as "quick.")

 

[BoyBrumby]

Shahzad in for Finn?

Mike Selvey would:

Of most interest over the coming few days is how England approach the second Test in terms of their bowling resource. For two or three months they have known the side which they wanted to take into the first Test and it may be they already know the one for Adelaide as well.

It does not necessarily follow that they are one and the same. England have come here with a contingency for all situations, but the addition of Ajmal Shahzad as a permanent member of the squad now has its significance.

In his only Test, at Old Trafford, Shahzad showed the capacity to reverse swing the ball, and at a very slippery pace. He has an ideal trajectory for Adelaide, where the stumps tend to be attacked more in search of bowled or lbw. Towards the end at The Gabba Steven Finn looked down on his pace, not surprising for a 21-year-old in his first Ashes Test and given that he had bowled almost 34 overs in the first innings.

His six-wicket haul, but more particularly the way in which he hastened a five-wicket collapse for 31 runs, went a long way towards saving the Test before the batsmen went to the crease again. But Adelaide bounces less, and skiddier bowlers can prosper. It might yet be prudent, in terms of Finn's well-being and England's strategy, to give him a rest.

Be a big call to drop a boy's who's taken a bag, but Selvey makes a fair case.

 

[Prince EWS]

Shahzad in for Finn?

Mike Selvey would:



Be a big call to drop a boy's who's taken a bag, but Selvey makes a fair case.

If you wanted to be really brave you could bring Shahzad in for Collingwood, given the likelihood of a draw and of batsmen down to seven probably not being needed, not to mention the fact that you'd still bat down to nine to some extent anyway. I wouldn't do it though, for several reasons - Collingwood hit a double ton at Adelaide last Ashes, England's lower order folded like a pack of cards in their only hit in Brisbane, and you currently hold the Ashes so you only need a drawn series anyway. Possibly worth thinking about though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If you wanted to be really brave you could bring Shahzad in for Collingwood, given the likelihood of a draw and of batsmen down to seven probably not being needed, not to mention the fact that you'd still bat down to nine to some extent anyway. I wouldn't do it though, for several reasons - Collingwood hit a double ton at Adelaide last Ashes, England's lower order folded like a pack of cards in their only hit in Brisbane, and you currently hold the Ashes so you only need a drawn series anyway. Possibly worth thinking about though.

Couldn't see it, tbh. We went for the extra bowler option once at Headingley and we all know how that ended up.

I think, push comes to shove, both the Andys are small "c" conservatives with selections & we don't need to chase a result yet.

 

[Prince EWS]

Couldn't see it, tbh. We went for the extra bowler option once at Headingley and we all know how that ended up.

I think, push comes to shove, both the Andys are small "c" conservatives with selections & we don't need to chase a result yet.

Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't do it either, as I said, but it's an option I actually gave some thought to today before arriving at that conclusion.

 

[tooextracool]

Dropping one of our best batsmen is not only adventurous but also reckless and foolhardy. Not sure why Collingwood's name is always thrown out whenever it comes to dropping someone, even though the majority of England batsmen haven't accomplished half of what he has over the course of their test match careers.

 

[MW1304]

Well I dont agree with that. You don't commend a player for taking wickets while bowling poorly. Johnson did that for years, however he is irrelevant to this because Finn is younger and has more natural attributes. Either someone bowls well or he bowls poorly, end of story.

I didn't say he was bowling poorly, I said 'apparantly' because you said he'd been bowling poorly. I thought he was decent in the first test here and was more than decent against pakistan, even though he was crappy against the tail for some reason. Although he managed to nail Australia's tail in the first test so perhaps he's tried to improve on that front. And, yes, as i said you can sprawl out the Mitchell Johnson example but it doesn't have any relevence.

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't say he was bowling poorly, I said 'apparantly' because you said he'd been bowling poorly. I thought he was decent in the first test here and was more than decent against pakistan, even though he was crappy against the tail for some reason. Although he managed to nail Australia's tail in the first test so perhaps he's tried to improve on that front. And, yes, as i said you can sprawl out the Mitchell Johnson example but it doesn't have any relevence.

Ok. Think we clearly defer in our opinion of Finn's recent performances. As I said, he doesn't do anything with the ball to warrant why he is taking wickets, most of his wickets from the last match came from bowling poor short pitched deliveries at tailenders. As long as your argument is 'hes bowled well because hes taken wickets against so and so' you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ok. Think we clearly defer in our opinion of Finn's recent performances. As I said, he doesn't do anything with the ball to warrant why he is taking wickets, most of his wickets from the last match came from bowling poor short pitched deliveries at tailenders. As long as your argument is 'hes bowled well because hes taken wickets against so and so' you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

I don't see why people are being so detracting of Finn. He has spent the last two years in county cricket attracting serious attention, bowling with pace, bounce and accuracy. I saw him take 14 wickets in a county match this year, he was quality.

He had a massive calling on the 606 boards and from England fans for a year before he was called up. Now that he's been in international cricket - and has had some success, no less - people are saying he's not good enough any more. Unfair.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't see why people are being so detracting of Finn. He has spent the last two years in county cricket attracting serious attention, bowling with pace, bounce and accuracy. I saw him take 14 wickets in a county match this year, he was quality.

He had a massive calling on the 606 boards and from England fans for a year before he was called up. Now that he's been in international cricket - and has had some success, no less - people are saying he's not good enough any more. Unfair.

Other than that game he did have a pretty ordinary time of it didnt he? In Div 2 no less.

Maybe he's done well before, but as I pointed out earlier his bowling action was much different and he was continually falling over. He also had a much slingier action at delivery. Im not sure if that is relevant to him currently, and I'd also like to think that it takes more than a season to get used to a new bowling action, especially when you are 21 yrs old.

Anyhow, cricket is a funny game and he may well end up getting everything together and produce the spell of a lifetime a la Broad in the 09 Ashes. But lets not ignore the fact that hes been pretty ordinary so far.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ok. Think we clearly defer in our opinion of Finn's recent performances. As I said, he doesn't do anything with the ball to warrant why he is taking wickets, most of his wickets from the last match came from bowling poor short pitched deliveries at tailenders. As long as your argument is 'hes bowled well because hes taken wickets against so and so' you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

That's a stretch. The fact that he took 4/6 with bouncers suggests there was something about them. Pace and bounce will always disconcert tailenders.

I have some sympathy with Selvey's suggestion of a "horses for courses" pick of Shahzad for Adelaide where Finn is less likely to get bounce off the surface, but Finn actually bowled well.

 

[tooextracool]

Meh this justification that he got someone out and therefore bowled well is annoying. That is equivalent to saying he attempted suicide by jumping into a well but instead landed in a gold mine, therefore it was a brilliant idea.

 

[MW1304]

Meh this justification that he got someone out and therefore bowled well is annoying. That is equivalent to saying he attempted suicide by jumping into a well but instead landed in a gold mine, therefore it was a brilliant idea.

Its not just the fact that he took wickets (which, by the way, has always a been a pretty good measure of whether someone is bowling well) but also the fact that he actually bowled well to the tailenders. Theres the aim at the stumps method and the bowl it short method when bowling to tailenders, he chose the second and did it well.

 

[tooextracool]

Its not just the fact that he took wickets (which, by the way, has always a been a pretty good measure of whether someone is bowling well) but also the fact that he actually bowled well to the tailenders. Theres the aim at the stumps method and the bowl it short method when bowling to tailenders, he chose the second and did it well.

Having a good short ball is definitely a handy weapon to have, but only when it is used as a surprise weapon. Bowling exclusively short is almost always a poor method of bowling. Ponting took him to the cleaners in the 2nd innings for doing exactly that. This is my biggest pet peeve with Finn, he has one length and he bowls it time and time again. It worked for him after Australia were far ahead in the game and already had 450+ on the board, so to say that he bowled well is being a little bit ridiculous.

 

[howardj]

Reports in the papers this morning suggest that both Harris and Bollinger have been drafted, at the expense of Hilfenhaus and Johnson. Prudent changes if you ask me. Australia is hardly in crisis in this Series, indeed we had a massive first innings lead in Brisbane (the real business end of the game). But nonetheless in such a condensed series, it's important to address weaknesses as and when they arise.

Certainly, for the guys who have been dropped, it's hardly a death sentence. As Siddle showed in Brisbane, such is the lack of a pecking order among six or seven of our quicks, one good performance can see you go from uncertain of your place in one Test, to the only guaranteed selection in the next Test.

There's massive scrutiny in an Ashes series, and not much time to address your problems between Tests. So I think it will be good for Johnson to get out of the spotlight and address his problems playing for WA.

 

[MW1304]

Having a good short ball is definitely a handy weapon to have, but only when it is used as a surprise weapon. Bowling exclusively short is almost always a poor method of bowling. Ponting took him to the cleaners in the 2nd innings for doing exactly that. This is my biggest pet peeve with Finn, he has one length and he bowls it time and time again. It worked for him after Australia were far ahead in the game and already had 450+ on the board, so to say that he bowled well is being a little bit ridiculous.

Oh of course, I don't believe you should ever bowl a bouncer barrage to a decent batsman, even one who's poor against the short ball, and Finn does drop it short too often, but there were 3 pretty poor batsmen at 9, 10 and 11 so Finn went for more short balls. That has often worked in the past and it worked then, so I think it was good bowling. He wasn't exceptional like Anderson was, but he was still good.