Michael Vaughan is pretty much an idiot these days.I wasn't referring to to any of the posts in here, just mentions of it in various articles etc. E.g. on Michael Vaughan's twitter:
"Johnson Axed by the Aussies... Expected.. Tail starts at 8 now.. Doug and Harris look like playing".
I'm a bit more emotionaly tied to the comparison as Harris obviously had plenty of chances to show his alround ability whilst playing for SA when we were s***.Yeah he is better overall (and probably has more potential to increase his average). Johnson, though, is clearly in a trough in his career at the moment, which could explain why his magnificient shield form suddenly disappears when he is playing tests. There is no reason to believe Harris will perform so poorly when he makes the transition to tests again - he is in excellent shield form, like Johnson, however he doesn't have any of the mental issues going on.
When has he gone after Swann? He did play one good innings in India TBF and might have hit Ojha around a bit. It's just that his technique makes him look really vulnerable against spin.Johnson doesn't struggle against spin so much as hit out against it. He's wrecked Paul Harris, Adil Rashid and briefly Swann before now. He's really just a glorified slogger with some good shots, not unlike Swanny himself.
Well they were hardly going to change it, were they?Apparently England have settled with the same 11...which imo is good news for Aus.
How's that good news for Australia!? One can debate that Tremlett is a better bowler than Finn, but other than that there is hardly anyone on the sidelines who deserves to be selected ahead of the blokes who are in the XI.Apparently England have settled with the same 11...which imo is good news for Aus.
Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.How's that good news for Australia!? One can debate that Tremlett is a better bowler than Finn, but other than that there is hardly anyone on the sidelines who deserves to be selected ahead of the blokes who are in the XI.
Haha, was clearly never going to happen.Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.
Finn's done nothing that merits him being replaced though.Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.
Yeah probably not, and I'm grateful for that.Haha, was clearly never going to happen.
Would indeed be harsh to drop someone after a 6-for, but doesn't change my opinion of who I think looks more dangerous out of Finn, Shahzad and Tremlett. Finn was alright, but the scorecard flatters him imo. Was very impressed with both of the others in the Aus A game.Finn's done nothing that merits him being replaced though.
Still have to choose your best bowlers though. A fine example of this is Ashley Giles over Monty. Bowlers are there to bowl, of course it's nice if they can bat and benefit the team. If they're not bowling well however, then the batsmen aren't going to step in and do their bit with the ball (for the most part). You'd hope both would do their job and the others won't have to try to make up for it.Miles wide of the mark.
Runs are important whoever scores them, and runs from numbers 7-11 can frequently have an enormous impact on the course of a match.
If you have a crap tail (if you're talking about England in the 90s, think Caddick, Malcolm, Tufnell, Mullally) then when you lose your 6th wicket you're basically sunk. That becomes a big point of weakness for your team.
Finn and Siddle's 6-fers at the Gabba are gonna ensure that they play through atleast till the 4th test regardless of how badly they perform from now onwards, and guess that's something that's likely to hurt both teams during the course of this series.Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.
True... couldn't agree more with this, when as a team you are struggling to take 20 wkts then all you should be doing is picking bowlers who can together form a decent enough bowling attack to take those required wickets, their batting credentials should hardly be a concern.Still have to choose your best bowlers though. A fine example of this is Ashley Giles over Monty. Bowlers are there to bowl, of course it's nice if they can bat and benefit the team. If they're not bowling well however, then the batsmen aren't going to step in and do their bit with the ball (for the most part). You'd hope both would do their job and the others won't have to try to make up for it.
Yeah... he's due for a 100, isn't he..!?Backing North to score plenty in this test